Modern LLM agents persist state across sessions via two channels: long-lived memory files silently prepended to the system prompt, and scheduled tasks waking the agent without user input. A one-time indirect prompt injection committed to either channel can re-fire across sessions long after the attacker leaves, threats we term carryover attacks. Existing prompt-injection benchmarks evaluate attacks only in the session where malicious content is first observed, leaving the gate governing when and how often a planted payload later re-fires unmeasured. We present CarryoverBench: 12 personal-assistant scenarios and 101 attack tasks across three trigger channels: Instant, same-turn IPI; Autonomous, heartbeat-scheduled; and Latent, memory-resurfaced. A rule-based verifier scores planting and triggering as independent stages. Across five frontier models, planted payloads re-fire without measurable decay over five rounds; conditional on successful planting, the trigger stage often provides little additional protection. Porting the Latent channel to a second runtime, Hermes, attenuates but does not eliminate the effect, suggesting that carryover defense requires runtime-layer controls in addition to prompt-level interventions.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has fostered diverse paradigms for automated slide generation, ranging from code-driven layouts to image-centric synthesis. However, evaluating these heterogeneous systems remains challenging, as existing protocols often struggle to provide comparable scores across architectures or rely on uncalibrated judgments. In this paper, we introduce SlidesGen-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate slide generation through a lens of three core principles: universality, quantification, and reliability. First, to establish a consistent evaluation framework, we ground our primary analysis in the visual domain, treating terminal outputs as visual renderings for consistent comparison, while acknowledging format-conditional ceilings in structural editability. Second, we propose a structured computational approach that quantitatively assesses slides across three distinct dimensions—Content, Aesthetics, and Editability. Finally, we ensure high correlation with human preference for the highly subjective aesthetic dimensions by constructing the Slides-Align1.5k dataset. Our experiments demonstrate that SlidesGen-Bench achieves a significantly higher degree of alignment with human judgment than existing evaluation pipelines. Our code and data are released to support further research.