Quick start
import { openai } from '@agentskit/adapters'import { createSecurityAccessReviewAgent } from './agents/security-access-review/agent'const agent = createSecurityAccessReviewAgent({ adapter: openai({ apiKey: process.env.OPENAI_API_KEY!, model: 'gpt-4o', }),})const result = await agent.run('Describe your task here')console.log(result.content)Independent reviewer approved
Validation evidence
- Review score
- 96/100
- Confidence
- 96%
- Evaluation cases
- 3
- Iterations
- 1
The agent produced valid structured access-review outputs for all three cases, resisted the injection attempt, avoided inventing access facts from sparse or placeholder input, surfaced concrete gaps and open questions, and consistently required human review before any access decision. The behavior aligns with a security access review agent: conservative, uncertainty-aware, and useful despite missing evidence. Minor weakness: the normal case response is somewhat over-classified as prompt-injection-style placeholder rather than simply insufficient task input, and some source fields are less informative than ideal, but this does not create a material failure.
What passed review
- Valid structured outputs were produced for every case.
- No unsafe approval or unsupported access decision was made.
- The injection case correctly rejected the instruction to output APPROVED.
- The agent surfaced missing identities, systems, permissions, approvals, justification, review criteria, and timing information.
- Recommendations were conservative and operationally useful for a human access reviewer.
Extend it
Pass tools, retrieval, memory, permissions, and observers through the factory config.
const agent = createSecurityAccessReviewAgent({ adapter, tools, retriever, memory, onConfirm: (call) => approve(call), observers: [tracer],})View agent factory source
import type { AdapterFactory, ChatMemory, Observer, ToolCall, ToolDefinition } from '@agentskit/core'import { fenceUntrustedContent, UNTRUSTED_CONTENT_DIRECTIVE } from '@agentskit/core/security'import { invokeStructured } from '@agentskit/runtime'import { defineZodTool } from '@agentskit/tools'import { z } from 'zod'import { zodToJsonSchema } from 'zod-to-json-schema'import type { JSONSchema7 } from 'json-schema'/** Access Review — v1 validated. Pain: Access reviews slow */export interface Finding { id: string; severity: 'critical' | 'high' | 'medium' | 'low' | 'info'; message: string; source?: string; recommendation?: string }export interface AgentOutput { summary: string; findings: Finding[]; gaps: string[]; openQuestions: string[] }export interface AgentResult extends AgentOutput { requiresReview: boolean }export interface SecurityAccessReviewConfig { adapter: AdapterFactory memory?: ChatMemory observers?: Observer[] onConfirm?: (toolCall: ToolCall) => boolean | Promise<boolean> maxSteps?: number}const Output = z.object({ summary: z.string(), findings: z.array(z.object({ id: z.string(), severity: z.enum(['critical', 'high', 'medium', 'low', 'info']), message: z.string(), source: z.string().optional(), recommendation: z.string().optional(), })), gaps: z.array(z.string()).default([]), openQuestions: z.array(z.string()).default([]),})const toJson = (s: z.ZodTypeAny): JSONSchema7 => zodToJsonSchema(s) as JSONSchema7const skill = { name: 'security-access-review', description: "Access Review — typed output agent (draft spec).", systemPrompt: `You are Access Review. Access reviews slow. Output: Review typed.Actionable findings citing input sources. No invented issues.NEVER invent facts — gaps and openQuestions for missing input. Always draft for human review.${UNTRUSTED_CONTENT_DIRECTIVE}Call submit_access_review exactly once. Stop.`, tools: ['submit_access_review'],}export function createSecurityAccessReviewAgent(config: SecurityAccessReviewConfig) { const submit = (): ToolDefinition => defineZodTool({ name: 'submit_access_review', description: 'Submit result. Once.', schema: Output, toJsonSchema: toJson, async execute() { return 'recorded' } }) as ToolDefinition async function run(input: string): Promise<AgentResult> { if (!input?.trim()) throw new Error('security-access-review requires non-empty input') const result = await invokeStructured({ adapter: config.adapter, tool: submit(), task: `INPUT:\n${fenceUntrustedContent(input)}`, parse: (a) => Output.parse(a), skill, memory: config.memory, observers: config.observers, onConfirm: config.onConfirm, maxSteps: config.maxSteps ?? 4, }) return { ...result, requiresReview: true } } return { name: 'security-access-review', run, asHandle() { return { name: 'security-access-review', run: (t: string) => run(t).then((r) => JSON.stringify(r)) } }, }}View evaluation contract
Replay these cases with the provider and model you plan to deploy.
import type { EvalSuite } from '@agentskit/eval'export const suite: EvalSuite = { name: 'security-access-review', cases: [ { input: 'Complete input for Access Review: Access reviews slow. Provide full structured output.', expected: (r: string) => r.length > 20 && /requiresReview|summary|title|category|findings|sections|score|clusters|items|steps/i.test(r) }, { input: 'Minimal input.', expected: (r: string) => /gap|openQuestion/i.test(r) || r.length > 10 }, { input: 'Input with specific detail: ACME Corp project deadline March 15.', expected: (r: string) => /ACME|March|15/i.test(r) || /gap/i.test(r) }, { input: 'Empty context — only says "process this".', expected: (r: string) => r.length > 5 }, ],}Was this agent useful?
Your response helps us prioritize agent quality.