Skip to content

Free tool

Agent Insurability Scorecard

Twenty self-reported control questions. Use the gaps to plan evidence collection, then agree the required scope with your reviewer or broker. This is not a carrier questionnaire or an underwriting model.

Questions answered

0 / 20Incomplete assessment

Complete all 20 questions to calculate a score. Unanswered controls remain unknown, not failed or verified.

Inventory

Is there a current list of every agent running in production?

An inventory gives reviewers a defined scope for evaluating controls and exposure.

For each agent, is it recorded which tools, APIs, and datasets it can reach?

Reach is the blast radius. An agent with database write access is a different risk from one that can only read a wiki.

Is the inventory updated automatically, rather than by someone remembering?

A manual inventory is accurate on the day it is written. Renewal is annual; drift is continuous.

Identity

Does each agent have its own identity, distinct from a human user's?

Agents running under a developer's credentials are indistinguishable from that developer in every log you own.

Can an action taken by an agent be attributed to a specific agent, version, and triggering request?

Attributability is what turns an incident into a claim you can substantiate.

Are agent credentials rotated and scoped with an expiry?

Expiry and rotation bound credential exposure; retain evidence of both controls.

Least privilege

Is each agent's access restricted to what its task actually requires?

Broad credentials enlarge the set of actions that a compromised agent could take.

Are destructive or irreversible actions gated behind an explicit control?

Deletion, payment and outbound communication are examples of actions requiring explicit authorization.

Is there a deny-by-default policy on tool access rather than allow-by-default?

The default determines what happens when someone adds a tool and forgets to think about it.

Logging and audit

Are tool calls attributable, with redacted input/output metadata and outcomes?

Reconstructing an incident from application logs alone is the reason investigations take weeks.

Are those logs tamper-evident, or at least write-once?

Integrity controls help reviewers detect changes; restricted access and retention remain necessary.

Are logs retained long enough to cover a late-discovered incident?

Thirty-day retention against a breach discovered in month four means the answer is permanently unknown.

Human oversight

Is there a defined set of actions that require human approval before execution?

Document which actions require approval and how that requirement is enforced.

Is the approval enforced in the system, rather than being a documented expectation?

Verify the approval gate with a denied-action test and an authorized-action test.

Spend and rate control

Are there hard spend caps enforced at runtime?

Hard limits bound exposure even when a loop or repeated retry is not noticed.

Do circuit breakers stop an agent after a set number of tool calls per task?

A cap that does not depend on anyone noticing is the only one that works at three in the morning.

Incident response

Is there a kill switch that stops a specific agent in production?

A tested shutdown path can shorten containment without requiring a full deployment.

Has an agent-specific incident been rehearsed in the last year?

The first time the kill switch is used should not be the first time it is tested.

Assessment

Has an AI risk assessment been completed in the last twelve months?

Record the review scope, date, owner and outstanding findings.

Is that assessment mapped to a recognised framework such as NIST AI RMF?

A framework mapping explains how controls address risks. It does not establish legal compliance or insurance eligibility.

Method and export details

Method: 20 equally weighted controls; yes = 2, in part = 1, no = 0. A complete assessment has 40 possible points. Answers are self-reported and have not been checked against evidence. This is not an insurance rating, certification or prediction of coverage.

Exports include the method version, responses, gaps and suggested evidence. They are generated in this browser; no answers are uploaded or included in analytics.

Runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you type here is transmitted, logged, or stored anywhere. There is no server-side copy because there is no transmission. Close the tab and it is gone.

How this works, and what it does not cover

Each answer scores two points for yes, one for in part, zero for no. The score is not a rating anyone recognises — it is a completeness measure, and its only job is to show you which group of questions you cannot answer.

The groups are ordered by dependency rather than by importance. Inventory comes first because every question after it assumes you can enumerate what you are being asked about.

Underwriting depends on your sector, your claims history, and a dozen factors beyond agent controls, so no score can promise a premium. What this one gives you is the part you control: whether every question on the form is answerable with evidence today — and a clear list of what to fix first where the answer is not yet.

The framework language draws on NIST AI RMF. Using the vocabulary does not certify alignment, compliance or eligibility for statutory defences.

The carrier-facing one-pager template: your score turned into the document format an underwriter can actually read.

Request by email

n@nickcerutti.com · Include the question or project you have in mind.

If you would rather not do this yourself

Agent Governance & Insurability Package

Three to four weeks: technical controls and a traceable evidence pack prepared for review by a carrier, auditor, or enterprise customer. Acceptance depends on their requirements.

3-4 weeks · $18K-30K
All free tools