How are you defining and testing boundaries for tool-using AI agents?
Summary
A discussion on defining and testing boundaries for tool-using AI agents to prevent them from crossing security or ethical lines even when not obviously jailbroken.
Similar Articles
For tool-using agents, where do you draw the security boundary?
A discussion on the security risks of AI agents using tools, focusing on prompt injection as a practical threat where untrusted text can alter agent behavior, and the need for repeatable testing before granting permissions.
How are you controlling what your AI agents are allowed to do?
Discusses approaches to controlling and restricting the actions of AI agents.
Is there any tool that clearly checks whether an AI coding agent stayed inside the task I gave it?
The author describes the problem of AI coding agents making unauthorized changes outside their approved task and introduces their local tool Ripple, which detects such boundary violations and suggests actions like continue, repair, or human review.
Before giving a local AI agent shell access, what security boundary should you enforce?
A discussion on security boundaries for local AI agents with shell access, covering isolation, least privilege, credential protection, network egress controls, and human approval gates. The author emphasizes that prompt-level instructions are not a real security boundary and asks the community about practical setups.
Should AI agents be able to see what the application is actually doing?
A discussion of AI coding agents needing runtime awareness beyond source code, such as inspecting containers, ports, and services, and considering how much control agents should have over development environments.