What belongs in an AI agent assessment scope?

Describe the agent’s operating boundary

Record the agent’s goal, user roles, entry points and connected tools. Include retrieved documents, browser content, messages, persistent memory and any other source of instructions or context. Mark which systems are included and which remain out of scope.

Use a simple workflow example: a user requests a report, the agent reads records, generates a summary and emails it. Each step raises a separate question about permitted data, recipient selection and who authorized the action.

Define safe test actions

Use representative test identities and synthetic records where possible. List which actions may execute, which should be intercepted and which are prohibited. Agree who can stop testing and how unexpected side effects will be handled.

A staging environment needs enough parity to exercise the real permission and approval paths. Ask the assessor to document where mocks or missing integrations limit the conclusions. Do not assume a clean staging result proves every production control works.

Cover influence, authority and persistence

Ask which direct and indirect inputs can redirect the agent. Then ask whether an injected instruction can cross a tool boundary, use a broader identity, bypass an approval or expose information to the wrong user.

If the system stores memory or retrieves shared content, scope whether one session can affect a later session. If several agents hand work to each other, explicitly ask whether those handoffs and cumulative actions are included. Do not assume an “agent assessment” includes them.

Specify what the report must record

Request a scope inventory, test conditions, confirmed findings, impact reasoning and assessment limits. Findings should include enough context for your engineering team to reproduce and fix them without guessing at the test setup.

Record model versions, relevant configuration and tool versions at the time of testing. Decide how material changes will affect the schedule and whether a retest or new engagement is needed.

Close with ownership and acceptance

Assign an internal owner for each finding and agree what evidence closes it. A blocked action, a narrower token scope or an enforced approval may each be appropriate, depending on the failure. The acceptance criterion should follow the impact.

Use the brief builder to capture a safe high-level scope. Share credentials and detailed system information only through a channel agreed with the selected provider.

Continue your research

These profiles link to the providers’ own descriptions. They are relevant reading, not a ranked recommendation.

This guide offers editorial procurement questions, not independently measured provider performance or a guarantee of security.

Discuss your project →

Want to organize more detail first? Use the optional assessment brief builder.