Before production launch
Review an AI-enabled application, agent, or tool-using workflow before users and production data are exposed.
Software
BreachwrightAI application security
AI Launch Risk Review
Make a defensible security decision before an AI application, agent, or MCP integration goes live.
Advent reviews the system architecture, data flows, trust boundaries, tool permissions, prompt-injection exposure, operational controls, and launch evidence. The engagement concludes with a ranked risk register and a practical launch recommendation for security, engineering, and business stakeholders.
When to use it
Review risk before the decision is locked in.
The review is most useful when stakeholders still have time to change architecture, permissions, controls, or launch conditions.
Before architecture approval
Give security, engineering, and business stakeholders a shared view of trust boundaries, assumptions, and launch conditions.
Before a customer review
Organize the evidence, control decisions, known risks, and follow-up work needed for a credible security conversation.
After a material change
Reassess risk when new models, tools, MCP servers, data sources, permissions, or autonomous actions alter the system.
Review surface
What Advent reviews.
The review connects technical architecture to the business decision, rather than treating AI risk as a standalone checklist.
System architecture
Application components, model providers, retrieval layers, integrations, identities, and deployment boundaries.
Data flows
Sensitive inputs, model context, stored conversations, retrieval sources, outputs, and downstream data handling.
Trust boundaries
Where user input, external content, third-party services, and model-generated instructions cross control boundaries.
Tools and permissions
MCP servers, agent tools, credentials, authorization, confirmation controls, and the actions the system can take.
Prompt-injection exposure
Direct and indirect injection paths, unsafe tool behavior, data exposure scenarios, and control bypass opportunities.
Operational controls
Logging, monitoring, incident response, change control, human oversight, vendor dependencies, and recovery options.
Deliverables
Evidence your stakeholders can use.
The final materials are structured for decision-makers and the teams responsible for controls, remediation, and follow-up work.
Ranked risk register
Risk scenarios prioritized by evidence, business impact, likelihood, affected components, and required action.
Launch recommendation
A practical recommendation to proceed, proceed with conditions, delay, or perform deeper validation before launch.
Evidence and action record
Documented assumptions, control observations, owners, launch conditions, and follow-up testing or remediation needs.
Sanitized sample structure
What the written deliverable covers
This example shows the structure of the report without presenting invented customer findings or confidential data.
- 01Decision summary and recommended launch posture
- 02System purpose, boundaries, assumptions, and dependencies
- 03Architecture, data-flow, identity, tool, and permission observations
- 04Ranked risk register with evidence, owners, and disposition
- 05Required launch conditions and recommended safeguards
- 06Open questions, accepted risks, and follow-up testing
Methodology
A clear path from system context to launch decision.
Each step produces evidence for the next, so the recommendation can be traced back to the architecture, controls, and risk scenarios.
Define the decision
Confirm the planned use, stakeholders, launch decision, business impact, system boundaries, and review constraints.
Map the system
Review architecture and data-flow material, then identify identities, trust boundaries, tools, permissions, and dependencies.
Analyze the risk
Evaluate credible misuse and failure scenarios, inspect available evidence, and perform approved focused validation when scoped.
Make the recommendation
Deliver the ranked risk register, launch conditions, unresolved questions, and a practical recommendation for stakeholders.
Scope
What shapes the engagement
Advent confirms the system boundary, stakeholder needs, available evidence, timeline, and any optional testing before proposing the engagement.
- Architecture complexity and number of connected systems
- Quality and availability of diagrams, inventories, and control evidence
- Number and roles of engineering, security, product, legal, and business stakeholders
- Use of agents, MCP servers, external tools, sensitive data, or autonomous actions
- Whether focused technical testing is requested and a suitable environment is available
Exclusions
What this review does not claim
- This is not a certification, compliance attestation, or guarantee that all risk has been identified.
- A full penetration test, red-team exercise, source-code audit, or cloud assessment is not included unless separately scoped.
- Advent documents and prioritizes remediation needs but does not implement product or infrastructure changes as part of the review.
- Active testing is performed only when explicitly authorized, scoped, and supported by an appropriate environment and rules of engagement.
Public work
Research behind the engagement.
Advent's approach is grounded in published technical work, public tools, reproducible security research, and practical risk analysis.
Published AI security research
Research on agentic systems, MCP, and prompt injection
Read Jashid Sany's public work on trust boundaries, permission bypasses, tool behavior, and defensive architecture.
View sourcePublic vulnerability workSecurity research and responsible disclosures
Review public research, reproducible findings, and disclosures across AI tools, applications, and open-source services.
View sourceOpen-source security toolmcp-recon
Explore a public reconnaissance tool for identifying MCP servers and patterns associated with disclosed security issues.
View sourceFounderAbout Jashid Sany
Learn how Advent combines offensive testing, AI security research, defensive architecture, and technology risk management.
View sourceFAQ
Common questions.
Does this replace a penetration test?
No. The review is designed to support a launch decision across architecture, controls, evidence, and risk. If exploitable behavior needs broader validation, Advent can recommend a separately scoped penetration test or focused research engagement.
Is this only for MCP applications?
No. The review can cover AI-enabled applications, agents, copilots, coding assistants, retrieval workflows, model integrations, and systems that use MCP or other tool interfaces.
Can the review include hands-on testing?
Yes, when focused validation is appropriate and explicitly included in the scope. Testing requires authorization, a suitable environment, agreed constraints, and clear rules of engagement.
Is this a certification or compliance assessment?
No. The engagement produces decision support and security evidence for your stakeholders. It does not provide certification, regulatory approval, or assurance that every vulnerability or risk has been identified.
What determines the scope?
Scope depends on architecture complexity, documentation quality, stakeholder involvement, system permissions, data sensitivity, launch timing, and whether technical testing is requested.
Start the review
Bring the launch decision into focus.
Share the system, planned use, stakeholders, target timeline, and the decision your team needs to make. Advent will confirm the appropriate review scope.