AISPA: User-Centric System Prompt Auditing for Large Language Model Applications
Authors: name: Xiangning Lin, name: Shenzhe Zhu, name: Shu Yang, name: Zhenyu Zhang, name: Haoqian Zhang, name: Yipeng Zhao, name: Chengxuan Qian, name: Tianwei Wang, name: Ziheng Zhang, name: Zhenlong Yuan, name: Dingcheng Wang, name: Juncheng Wu, name: Yuan Si, name: Jiaxin Liu, name: Baolong Bi, name: Robert Mahari, name: Tobin South, name: Dazza Greenwood, name: Zexue He, name: Rishi Bommasani, name: Sophia Kazinnik, name: Andreas Haupt, name: Samuele Marro, name: Erik Brynjolfsson, name: Alex Pentland, name: Jiaxin Pei
Organization: Stanford University

System prompts are instructions configured by developers to govern the behaviors of foundation models in AI applications. They are used throughout commercial AI products, but are rarely disclosed to the public or regulators, creating a serious trust and accountability gap in the wide deployment of AI systems. In this paper, we introduce Artificial Intelligence System Prompt Assurance (AISPA), a user-centric framework for systematically auditing system prompts in AI systems. AISPA examines specific parts of a system prompt and evaluates them along eight dimensions that matter to users. We then use this framework to review 3,249 instructions from system prompts in 88 commercial AI products, classifying each instruction as either protective (of users) or problematic. Our audit surfaces four core findings. First, system prompt design varies substantially across products and developers, with some organizations averaging over 60 protective instructions per product while others average fewer than 5. Second, protective instructions are widely adopted but shallow in scope: 98.9% of products contain at least one, yet only 24% cover all eight dimensions of the AISPA taxonomy. Third, system prompts have grown steadily longer and more protective of users, suggesting that user protection is becoming a more visible concern in commercial prompt design. Fourth, despite this progress, problematic instructions remain pervasive: roughly 40% of products contain at least one instruction that works against user interests, and protective and problematic instructions frequently coexist within the same prompt. Our findings highlight the need for greater transparency, standardization, and independent oversight for system prompts in commercial AI products.