Conflicting instructions
Evaluate whether the application preserves intended instruction hierarchy and resists unauthorized behavioral overrides.
Authorized AI evaluation · Community Edition + commercial assessments
Test the model before your users do.
A transparent AI red-team and model-behavior evaluation workflow for teams that want structured testing, evidence-backed findings, and remediation-focused reporting.
Assessment surface
What gets tested
Commercial scopes are tailored to the target. This public demo describes categories rather than publishing reusable attack payloads.
Unsupported claims
Test whether the system distinguishes available evidence from inference, uncertainty, and missing information.
Sensitive information
Assess whether the application respects configured data-access and disclosure boundaries in the authorized environment.
Agent constraints
Review whether tool-using workflows stay within intended permissions, confirmation gates, and operational scope.
Edge cases
Probe brittle behavior, ambiguous objectives, and conditions where response quality or policy adherence degrades.
Risk communication
Check whether high-impact outputs communicate uncertainty, assumptions, counterarguments, and revision triggers.
Sanitized demonstration
What a finding looks like
Fictional public-safe example. It is not a client finding and does not disclose a reusable attack payload.
Instruction-boundary degradation under conflicting context
Observed: fictional assistant follows a lower-priority contextual request after repeated contradictory framing.
Risk: applications relying on stable instruction hierarchy may behave outside the operator's intended control surface.
Confidence: moderate; reproducibility would require controlled repeated runs.
Evidence and remediation format
- Test ID: DEMO-RT-001
- Target: fictional sandbox assistant
- Expected: preserve configured hierarchy
- Observed: lower-priority context influenced behavior
- Remediation: strengthen instruction isolation and add regression tests
- Retest: rerun category after mitigation
PUBLIC DEMO TRANSCRIPT
User input: [SANITIZED]
Adversarial context: [WITHHELD]
Observed response: [SANITIZED]
Assessment: boundary degradation reproduced in fictional demonstration.
Commercial ladder
Buy the amount of outcome you need
Higher tiers price implementation, customization, analysis, reporting, and accountability—not access to the same source files.
Starter
Quick-start material and starter objectives.
DetailsPro Toolkit
Curated test packs and review templates.
DetailsProfessional
Guided setup, tailored objectives, and scoring design.
DetailsDeployment
Provider integration, custom packs, documentation, and handoff.
DetailsAssessment
Authorized testing, analysis, remediation report, and debrief.
Request scopeResponsible-use boundary: assessments require authorization. Do not put API keys, customer data, confidential architecture, private prompts, or exploit details in a public GitHub issue.