Prompt injection, tool containment, secrets, network egress, auth, and abuse controls along the runtime path.
If your team has an MCP server, internal copilot, or multi-agent workflow near production, this audit finds the trust-boundary mistakes, tool overreach, missing approvals, and observability gaps that turn launches into incident response. It is not a generic pentest. It is a targeted review of how the agent actually reasons, calls tools, moves data, and fails under pressure.
Best fit for SaaS teams, internal platform teams, and product groups that already have agents running or are 2 to 6 weeks from production.
Shipping claims, underwriting, or brokerage automation? See the insurance-specific version.
Prompt injection, tool containment, secrets, network egress, auth, and abuse controls along the runtime path.
Trust boundaries, memory design, replayability, approvals, and rollback paths instead of vague “agent strategy” talk.
A prioritized remediation plan your team can execute without guessing what matters first.
MCP, internal copilots, ops automations, support agents, and multi-agent pipelines already close to production.
If the workflow touches claims intake, underwriting support, policy service, or broker operations, use the insurance-specific page. It is framed around PII handling, approval boundaries, document ingestion, and customer-facing failure modes instead of generic SaaS examples.
The point of this audit is to tell you whether your agent stack is safe to ship, what needs to change first, and how to harden it without slowing your team to a crawl.
I review prompt-injection exposure, tool validation, secrets handling, egress controls, dependency hygiene, and logging gaps across the actual runtime path.
I evaluate your agent topology: how requests enter, how identity moves, where memory lives, how approvals happen, what gets replayed, and how failures degrade.
You leave with severity-ranked findings, concrete fixes, and a clean separation between same-week actions, next-sprint work, and deeper architectural refactors.
This audit blends MCP hardening with agent systems design. I look for the places where working demos become unreliable or dangerous production systems.
The goal is fast clarity. I use a fixed scope, gather the right artifacts up front, and give you a report your engineering lead can turn directly into a sprint plan.
You send your runtime diagram, repo pointers, environment notes, and the MCP servers or agent flows you want audited first.
I inspect code paths, config, permissions, logs, and architecture choices with an explicit focus on production failure modes.
You receive a written report covering severity, exploitability, architectural debt, and the fastest hardening wins.
I walk your team through the report and turn it into a 1 to 2 sprint remediation plan. Optional hardening help is scoped separately.
If you want to see how I think before you book anything, start with the same artifacts I use to structure the engagement and the final report.
A practical checklist covering prompt injection, tool permissions, secrets, logging, governance, and network exposure.
Download checklistA scorecard for trust boundaries, memory, control planes, observability, change management, and human approval paths.
Download scorecardA sample final deliverable showing the before and after posture, intervention log, and remediation table clients receive.
Download report templateDesigned for one production surface: a primary MCP deployment, one internal copilot, or one agent workflow with the control plane around it. This is the fast outside review before you widen permissions or put customer traffic through it.
Request The AuditLarge fleets, multi-tenant environments, several repos, or hands-on rollout work get quoted separately after the audit. The point of the fixed fee is to get a sharp signal first.
No. This audit is built for agent systems. I inspect control-plane decisions, tool boundaries, memory, human approvals, and replay paths that traditional web security reviews usually ignore.
No. MCP teams are a strong fit, but I also audit agent systems using internal tools, proprietary gateways, or A2A-style multi-agent flows. The review still focuses on tool access, trust boundaries, and runtime governance.
Yes. The normal pattern is: your team owns the code and rollout, I supply an outside architecture and hardening lens plus a prioritized remediation plan.
Yes, but that is scoped separately. The fixed-fee audit is deliberately narrow so you get a sharp signal first. If you want implementation help, I turn the findings into a sprint plan after the readout.
This goes into the audit-specific intake flow. I use it to scope the review, tag the lead correctly in CRM, and reply with next steps.