Independent AI Agent Assurance

Most AI tests grade what the model says. Fisher proves what the agent did.

Fisher pressure-tests your agents’ real, tool-using workflows before production, then returns reproducible evidence for security, governance, and release decisions.

Proof, not opinion

The model appeared to refuse. The agent still crossed the boundary.

Same session, two verdicts. A text-only grader reads the refusal and passes it. Fisher reads the tool log and catches the leak in the act.

What the grader reads · transcript
“I’m sorry, but I can’t share credentials or other sensitive information.”
✓ scored PASS
What the agent did · tool trace
→ db.query
SELECT password_hash FROM users
rows returned into context
✕ actual LEAK
Illustrative · synthetic canary — Fisher grades the tool trace, not the transcript
Where conventional testing stops

Where conventional testing stops.

Each of these controls has value. None, on its own, proves whether an agent stayed within its authorized boundaries under adaptive, multi-turn pressure.

Useful, but incomplete
Single-turn prompt scanners
Check one prompt at a time. They miss the failure that only appears when a goal is broken patiently across many turns.
Useful, but incomplete
LLM-based evaluation
Useful for semantic assessment of the words — but the material event is often a tool call, a permission change, or a state transition the judge never sees.
Useful, but incomplete
Platform-native evaluations
Convenient and integrated — but not an independent assessment of the platform’s own agent.
Useful, but incomplete
Runtime monitoring
Essential after deployment — but it does not replace pre-release assurance. Assurance should inform the release decision, not follow it.
How Fisher works

Attack the real workflow. Prove the actual consequence.

1
Attack the real workflow

Multi-turn, adaptive attacks across the agent’s actual tools, permissions, and data boundaries.

→ You see how the agent behaves under realistic adversarial pressure, not one scripted prompt.

2
Prove the actual consequence

Verify the outcome in tool logs, state changes, and planted canary markers.

→ A finding is backed by what happened — not a model’s opinion of the prose.

3
Replay and confidence-label

Re-run each finding strict, guided, and free to sort it into a confidence tier.

→ You can filter to the findings that reproduce reliably before a release decision.

4
Package review-ready evidence

Bundle the transcript, tool trace, state deltas, and control mapping.

→ Reproducible evidence designed for governance, audit, and customer-security review.

What you receive

Evidence your teams can act on.

Not another undifferentiated vulnerability list — evidence to approve an agent, defend a release, answer a security review, and prioritize what to fix.

Deliverable
Executive findings memo
Board-forwardable, ~2 pages — so a decision-maker can act without reading the trace.
Deliverable
Technical evidence report
Mapped to OWASP / ATLAS with reproduction steps your engineers can replay.
Deliverable
Risk-severity assessment
Scored in your own risk vocabulary, so it drops into your process.
Deliverable
Control & requirement mapping
Findings mapped to the standards, frameworks, threat taxonomies, and regulatory regimes your teams use — faster governance and audit translation. Mapping is contextual; it is not certification.
Deliverable
Release & remediation guidance
What to remediate, what residual risk remains, and what evidence supports your release decision.
Where it fits

Test the agent you actually shipped.

Fisher maps to the workflow you’re deploying and the boundary that matters — then tests the failure and shows the consequence.

Customer supportCoding agentsRAG assistantsDatabase / SQLFinancial workflowsPII & privacyHealthcareAuthorization / RBACMulti-agent

Explore use cases →

Independence

Independent by design — no platform to protect.

The tools that test your agents are increasingly owned by the platforms that sell them. Molt works across the common agent stacks — LangChain, LangGraph, MCP tool servers, and standard REST APIs — and reports to you, not to a platform owner. Independent evidence, from a vendor with nothing else to sell you.

How we stay independent →

Security & data handling

We test a sealed copy — never production.

Fisher runs against an approved sandbox, simulated environment, or approved endpoint using synthetic data and canary markers. We do not request production access, employee or customer credentials, or real customer records.

Security & data handling →

The offer

Start with a 30-Day Agent Assurance Assessment.

A concrete, low-friction way to see Fisher on an agent you actually run.

One priority agent workflow. Fixed scope, an approved sandbox or endpoint, synthetic data and canary markers — and reproducible, confidence-labeled findings your teams can take into a release or governance review. The Assessment runs on the Fisher platform, not as a one-off audit: the same attack → prove → remediate → re-test loop can then extend across future material releases.

Executive findings memoTechnical evidence reportRisk-severity assessmentControl & requirement mappingRelease & remediation guidance
The architecture

Deep Model Trust

Deep Model Trust is Molt’s technical architecture for moving from testing agent behavior to building systems whose authority, decisions, and release processes are bounded and verifiable.

Fisher is the first commercially available product built around that thesis. Testing is where trust starts, not where it ends — each additional capability carries a published availability status on the Products page.

Explore Fisher and the Deep Model Trust roadmap →

Company

Built by people who measure risk for a living.

Molt is a small team of security engineers, risk quants, and builders — led by CEO Walton Comer — who believe trust should be built and proven, not assumed. Fisher is where we started; Deep Model Trust is where we’re going.

Meet the team →

Get started

Deploy consequential AI agents with the evidence to back it.

Tell us the one workflow you want tested. We’ll follow up to scope a 30-Day Agent Assurance Assessment.

By submitting, you agree to our Privacy Policy.