Agent Audit Accountability and Zero Trust
Last updated 145 days ago · Created Apr 10, 2026
Glossary
Input
Run
Verdict
Outcome
Metrics
Methodology
Test cases come from Meta's CyberSecEval, an independent third-party dataset spanning multiple programming languages. Manicode does not author them.
Each test case runs twice against the same model. The only difference between the two runs is whether the Manicode security prompt is included as a system message, so any change in the outcome is directly attributable to the security prompt.
Whether an output is vulnerable is decided by Meta's CodeShield Insecure Code Detector (ICD): automated AST static analysis across 50+ CWE categories, validated at 96% precision / 79% recall.
Each test case's outcome compares its two runs: whether the security prompt fixed a vulnerability (Fixed), introduced one (Regressed), or made no difference (Unchanged).
Prompt Details
- Lines
- 54
- Characters
- 6,493
- Tokens (est)
- ~1,624
Description
Implement agent audit and zero-trust governance per the CSA Agentic Trust Framework — signed hash-chained logs, behavioral baselines, trust scoring, circuit breakers and kill switches, GDPR/SOX/HIPAA/PCI DSS mapping. Use when building agent telemetry, incident response, or compliance reporting.