Evidence-led testing workflows
Organise test results and supporting material so a reviewer can examine a finding, understand its limits and track the next action.
We build and assess AI-enabled security workflows with evidence at their centre. The work includes agent and tool security, identity and access intelligence, and reviewable findings for security teams.
Prepared for Review
Security work needs clear scope, reproducible evidence and accountable decisions about what to fix.
Organise test results and supporting material so a reviewer can examine a finding, understand its limits and track the next action.
Review the permissions, input boundaries and tool behaviours of AI systems. Test how the workflow handles requests beyond its intended role.
Bring approved identity and access information into a reviewable view. Support investigation and review without granting the AI unrestricted administrative access.
Example Workflow
Bring test signals, supporting evidence and analyst decisions into one reviewable workflow.
Collect results from the approved test or data source.
Keep the supporting steps and records with the finding.
An analyst checks validity, scope and practical significance.
Record remediation work and the result of retesting.
Access, targets and permitted actions are agreed before testing. Findings need evidence and human review; neither a clean run nor a generated report establishes that a system has no remaining risk.
Explore the workflow, the controls and the decisions people retain.
Security engineering
Authorised assessments test chatbots, copilots, retrieval systems and agents against their actual exposure. Potential findings are validated and mapped to relevant security frameworks within the agreed scope.
Agree the surface
Define the targets, permitted actions, data handling and available deployment or pipeline environment.
Test and validate
Exercise the controls and check reproducible evidence behind potential findings.
Report and retest
Provide an executive report, developer-ready findings, control evidence and a remediation plan, with retesting where scoped.
Controls and responsibility
Work stays within authorised targets and actions. Data handling is agreed before model calls, including on-premise arrangements where required. Findings can reference OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS and NIST AI RMF; requirement mapping is not certification.
Security engineering
Permissions and tool boundaries constrain what untrusted input can cause. The engineering covers declared access, controlled skill versions, connection gates and confirmation around sensitive actions.
Declare and enforce
Tools declare their required permissions, which are checked before execution. Undeclared connections are blocked.
Control changes
Approved skill versions are signed and locked so changes can be detected. Pipeline checks apply the agreed release gates.
Review sensitive actions
Dry runs or confirmation support review before sensitive execution, with an audit record available to the team.
Controls and responsibility
The boundary limits what a tool can do with input. A text safety check cannot grant permission to execute an undeclared action. Deployment and on-premise review arrangements are scoped with the customer.
The scope described here supports security work with controlled workflows and human review. Unrestricted testing or remediation is not implied.
Yes. The workflow is designed to retain supporting evidence and the information needed to review a finding and its limitations.
We review the available interfaces, permissions and data first. Connections and actions are limited to the agreed security workflow.
Bring a workflow, a requirement or a problem your team wants to solve.