{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_adversa","slug":"adversa","name":"Adversa","type":"product","url":"https://adversa.ai","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/adversa","categories":["code-review-security"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_0","uri":"capability://security.adversarial.attack.simulation","name":"adversarial-attack-simulation","description":"Generates adversarial examples and attack vectors against ML models to identify vulnerabilities before deployment. Simulates real-world attack scenarios including perturbations, poisoning, and evasion techniques across computer vision and NLP models.","intents":["I need to find security vulnerabilities in my ML model before it goes to production","I want to test how robust my model is against adversarial inputs","I need to understand what kinds of attacks could fool my AI system"],"best_for":["ML security engineers","Enterprise AI teams in regulated industries","Model developers responsible for high-stakes deployments"],"limitations":["Requires technical expertise to interpret results and implement fixes","Testing frequency and model size directly impact costs","Effectiveness depends on having representative training data"],"requires":["Trained ML model (computer vision or NLP)","Access to model architecture and weights","ML security expertise to act on findings"],"input_types":["trained model files","model architecture definitions","sample input data"],"output_types":["adversarial examples","attack success rates","vulnerability reports"],"categories":["security","testing","machine-learning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_1","uri":"capability://compliance.regulatory.compliance.tracking","name":"regulatory-compliance-tracking","description":"Automatically monitors and documents AI model compliance against regulatory frameworks including FDA, HIPAA, and EU AI Act requirements. Generates compliance reports and tracks adherence to evolving regulatory standards.","intents":["I need to prove my AI system meets FDA/HIPAA requirements for regulatory approval","I want to automatically track compliance with the EU AI Act without manual documentation","I need audit-ready compliance reports for my board and regulators"],"best_for":["Compliance officers in regulated industries","Enterprise AI teams in healthcare and finance","Organizations subject to EU AI Act requirements"],"limitations":["Compliance frameworks evolve faster than platform updates may keep pace","Requires manual interpretation of how specific regulations apply to custom models","Does not replace legal counsel for regulatory interpretation"],"requires":["Model documentation and metadata","Testing results from adversarial testing","Access to model performance metrics"],"input_types":["model metadata","test results","performance metrics","training data documentation"],"output_types":["compliance reports","regulatory checklists","audit documentation"],"categories":["compliance","governance","documentation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_10","uri":"capability://security.autonomous.systems.safety.validation","name":"autonomous-systems-safety-validation","description":"Validates safety and robustness of AI systems in autonomous vehicles, robotics, and other safety-critical applications. Tests for edge cases, adversarial scenarios, and failure modes that could impact physical safety.","intents":["I need to verify my autonomous vehicle's perception system won't fail in adversarial conditions","I want to test my robot's decision-making under edge cases and attacks","I need safety validation documentation for autonomous systems deployment"],"best_for":["Autonomous vehicle developers","Robotics companies deploying safety-critical systems","Organizations responsible for autonomous system safety"],"limitations":["Simulation-based testing may not capture all real-world scenarios","Safety validation requires extensive testing beyond adversarial attacks","Does not replace formal safety certification processes"],"requires":["Autonomous system AI models","Simulation environments or test data","Safety requirements and constraints"],"input_types":["perception and decision models","sensor data","scenario definitions"],"output_types":["safety validation reports","edge case analysis","failure mode documentation"],"categories":["security","safety","autonomous-systems"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_11","uri":"capability://security.model.performance.degradation.analysis","name":"model-performance-degradation-analysis","description":"Analyzes how model performance degrades under adversarial attacks and stress conditions. Quantifies the gap between clean accuracy and adversarial robustness to identify critical vulnerabilities.","intents":["I want to understand how much my model's accuracy drops under attack","I need to know the worst-case performance degradation scenarios","I want to identify which types of attacks cause the most performance loss"],"best_for":["ML engineers optimizing robustness-accuracy tradeoffs","Teams assessing real-world deployment risks","Organizations quantifying security impact"],"limitations":["Degradation analysis is specific to tested attack types","Real-world attacks may differ from simulated scenarios","Doesn't account for deployment-specific factors"],"requires":["Baseline model performance metrics","Adversarial testing results","Clean and adversarial test datasets"],"input_types":["model performance data","adversarial test results"],"output_types":["degradation metrics","performance gap analysis","attack impact rankings"],"categories":["security","analytics","testing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_2","uri":"capability://security.continuous.threat.vector.updates","name":"continuous-threat-vector-updates","description":"Maintains and updates an evolving library of adversarial attack vectors and emerging threat patterns. Automatically incorporates new attack methodologies discovered in the security research community.","intents":["I want my model defenses to stay current with emerging attack techniques","I need to test against the latest adversarial attack methods without manual research","I want to ensure my security posture adapts as new vulnerabilities are discovered"],"best_for":["Security-conscious ML teams","Organizations with continuous deployment pipelines","Teams unable to dedicate resources to security research"],"limitations":["Updates are only as good as the platform's threat intelligence sources","May include theoretical attacks not yet seen in the wild","Requires active subscription to receive updates"],"requires":["Active Adversa subscription","Periodic re-testing of models","Integration with CI/CD pipeline"],"input_types":["existing model test configurations"],"output_types":["updated attack vectors","new test cases","threat intelligence reports"],"categories":["security","threat-intelligence","machine-learning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_3","uri":"capability://security.computer.vision.model.stress.testing","name":"computer-vision-model-stress-testing","description":"Applies specialized adversarial techniques to computer vision models including image perturbations, object detection evasion, and classification attacks. Tests robustness across various attack modalities specific to vision systems.","intents":["I need to test if my image classification model can be fooled by adversarial images","I want to ensure my object detection system is robust against real-world variations","I need to verify my computer vision model won't fail in security-critical applications"],"best_for":["Computer vision engineers","Teams deploying vision models in autonomous systems","Organizations using vision for security or medical imaging"],"limitations":["Requires representative image datasets for effective testing","Attack success varies significantly based on model architecture","Physical-world attack simulation may not translate to real deployments"],"requires":["Trained computer vision model","Sample images or image dataset","Model architecture details"],"input_types":["trained vision models","image datasets","model configuration"],"output_types":["adversarial images","attack success metrics","robustness scores"],"categories":["security","testing","computer-vision"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_4","uri":"capability://security.natural.language.model.adversarial.testing","name":"natural-language-model-adversarial-testing","description":"Applies NLP-specific adversarial attacks including prompt injection, semantic perturbations, and text-based evasion techniques. Tests language models for vulnerabilities in understanding, generation, and instruction-following.","intents":["I need to test if my NLP model is vulnerable to prompt injection attacks","I want to verify my language model won't produce harmful outputs under adversarial inputs","I need to ensure my chatbot or text classifier is robust against semantic attacks"],"best_for":["NLP engineers and researchers","Teams deploying language models in customer-facing applications","Organizations concerned about prompt injection vulnerabilities"],"limitations":["NLP adversarial testing is less mature than computer vision testing","Attack effectiveness varies significantly with model size and training","Semantic perturbations may not transfer across different model architectures"],"requires":["Trained NLP/language model","Text datasets or prompt examples","Model API access or weights"],"input_types":["trained NLP models","text datasets","prompt examples"],"output_types":["adversarial prompts","attack success rates","vulnerability assessments"],"categories":["security","testing","natural-language-processing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_5","uri":"capability://security.model.robustness.scoring","name":"model-robustness-scoring","description":"Generates quantitative robustness scores for ML models based on adversarial testing results. Provides comparative metrics to benchmark model security against industry standards and previous versions.","intents":["I want a numerical score to measure how robust my model is","I need to compare the security of different model versions or architectures","I want to track robustness improvements over time as I harden my model"],"best_for":["ML engineers optimizing for robustness","Teams making model selection decisions","Organizations tracking security metrics over time"],"limitations":["Scores are relative to Adversa's testing methodology, not absolute security guarantees","Different attack types may weight differently in overall score","Scores don't account for deployment-specific threat models"],"requires":["Completed adversarial testing results","Model performance baselines"],"input_types":["adversarial test results","model performance data"],"output_types":["robustness scores","comparative metrics","trend reports"],"categories":["security","analytics","machine-learning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_6","uri":"capability://security.vulnerability.report.generation","name":"vulnerability-report-generation","description":"Creates detailed security reports documenting identified vulnerabilities, attack success rates, and recommended remediation steps. Generates executive summaries and technical deep-dives for different stakeholder audiences.","intents":["I need to report security findings to my engineering team with actionable fixes","I want to present AI security risks to executives and board members","I need documentation of vulnerabilities for security audits and compliance reviews"],"best_for":["Security teams communicating findings to stakeholders","ML engineers implementing security fixes","Compliance and audit teams documenting security posture"],"limitations":["Report quality depends on clarity of underlying test results","Executive summaries may oversimplify complex technical vulnerabilities","Remediation recommendations are generic, not model-specific"],"requires":["Completed adversarial testing","Model context and deployment information"],"input_types":["test results","model metadata","attack vectors used"],"output_types":["PDF/HTML reports","executive summaries","technical vulnerability details","remediation recommendations"],"categories":["security","reporting","documentation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_7","uri":"capability://security.model.hardening.guidance","name":"model-hardening-guidance","description":"Provides specific recommendations for improving model robustness based on identified vulnerabilities. Suggests architectural changes, training modifications, and defensive techniques tailored to discovered weaknesses.","intents":["I found vulnerabilities in my model—what specific changes should I make?","I want to know which defensive techniques would be most effective for my model","I need guidance on retraining or fine-tuning my model to be more robust"],"best_for":["ML engineers implementing security improvements","Teams with dedicated ML security personnel","Organizations committed to iterative security hardening"],"limitations":["Recommendations are general; implementation requires deep ML expertise","Hardening may impact model performance or latency","Some recommendations may not be feasible given model constraints"],"requires":["Detailed vulnerability analysis","Understanding of model architecture and training process","Resources to implement and test changes"],"input_types":["vulnerability reports","model architecture details","training data information"],"output_types":["hardening recommendations","implementation guides","expected impact assessments"],"categories":["security","machine-learning","guidance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_8","uri":"capability://compliance.healthcare.ai.compliance.validation","name":"healthcare-ai-compliance-validation","description":"Specialized compliance validation for healthcare AI systems including FDA medical device requirements, HIPAA privacy standards, and clinical validation protocols. Ensures models meet healthcare-specific regulatory requirements.","intents":["I need to validate my diagnostic AI system meets FDA requirements for medical devices","I want to ensure my healthcare model complies with HIPAA privacy standards","I need documentation that my clinical AI system meets regulatory standards for approval"],"best_for":["Healthcare organizations deploying AI diagnostics","Medical device companies integrating AI","Teams seeking FDA approval for AI-based medical systems"],"limitations":["Does not replace FDA submission or regulatory review process","Healthcare regulations vary by jurisdiction and application","Compliance validation is necessary but not sufficient for approval"],"requires":["Healthcare AI model with clinical validation data","Privacy and security documentation","Training data provenance information"],"input_types":["model performance metrics","clinical validation data","privacy/security documentation"],"output_types":["FDA compliance reports","HIPAA validation documentation","clinical validation summaries"],"categories":["compliance","healthcare","security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_adversa__cap_9","uri":"capability://compliance.financial.services.ai.risk.assessment","name":"financial-services-ai-risk-assessment","description":"Evaluates AI models used in financial services for regulatory compliance, market manipulation risks, and fairness violations. Assesses models against financial industry standards and regulatory frameworks.","intents":["I need to ensure my trading algorithm won't trigger regulatory scrutiny","I want to validate my credit scoring model doesn't discriminate unfairly","I need compliance documentation for my AI-powered financial advisory system"],"best_for":["Financial services firms deploying AI models","Risk and compliance teams in banking and fintech","Organizations subject to financial regulatory oversight"],"limitations":["Financial regulations vary significantly by jurisdiction","Risk assessment is point-in-time; markets and regulations evolve","Does not replace human compliance review"],"requires":["Financial AI model with performance data","Training data and feature documentation","Risk parameters and constraints"],"input_types":["trained financial models","performance metrics","training data documentation"],"output_types":["risk assessment reports","regulatory compliance documentation","fairness analysis"],"categories":["compliance","finance","security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":44,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["Trained ML model (computer vision or NLP)","Access to model architecture and weights","ML security expertise to act on findings","Model documentation and metadata","Testing results from adversarial testing","Access to model performance metrics","Autonomous system AI models","Simulation environments or test data","Safety requirements and constraints","Baseline model performance metrics"],"failure_modes":["Requires technical expertise to interpret results and implement fixes","Testing frequency and model size directly impact costs","Effectiveness depends on having representative training data","Compliance frameworks evolve faster than platform updates may keep pace","Requires manual interpretation of how specific regulations apply to custom models","Does not replace legal counsel for regulatory interpretation","Simulation-based testing may not capture all real-world scenarios","Safety validation requires extensive testing beyond adversarial attacks","Does not replace formal safety certification processes","Degradation analysis is specific to tested attack types","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.39999999999999997,"quality":0.82,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:28.696Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.550Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=adversa","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=adversa"}},"signature":"+Em3TfSOUNf7tHnOxn6DRzaQ92n/X+rreGfYBW0oEuV8BTAKM3smifN8yrJy7uUamigWobKt9A9J5dPiI0aOCg==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T12:08:26.791Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/adversa","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/adversa","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=adversa","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}