{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar","slug":"agentic-radar","name":"Agentic Radar","type":"cli","url":"https://github.com/splx-ai/agentic-radar","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/agentic-radar","categories":["code-review-security"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_0","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.agentic.workflow.security.scanning","name":"agentic-workflow-security-scanning","description":"Scans agentic workflows (agent definitions, tool integrations, LLM chains) for security vulnerabilities by parsing workflow configurations and analyzing tool-use patterns. Uses static analysis to detect unsafe function calls, unvalidated tool inputs, privilege escalation risks, and insecure API integrations without requiring runtime execution. Operates as a CLI that ingests workflow definitions (YAML, JSON, or Python agent code) and outputs a structured vulnerability report with severity levels and remediation guidance.","intents":["I need to audit my agent's tool integrations before deploying to production to catch security misconfigurations","I want to detect if my agent can be tricked into calling dangerous functions or accessing sensitive APIs","I need to validate that my multi-agent system doesn't have privilege escalation vulnerabilities across tool chains","I want to enforce security policies on agentic workflows in my CI/CD pipeline before merge"],"best_for":["AI/ML teams building production agentic systems with tool-use capabilities","Security engineers auditing LLM agent deployments","DevOps teams integrating agent security into CI/CD pipelines","Enterprises requiring compliance scanning for autonomous workflows"],"limitations":["Static analysis only — cannot detect runtime-specific vulnerabilities that emerge from dynamic agent behavior or state-dependent tool calls","Requires workflow definitions to be explicitly defined; cannot scan agents that dynamically generate tool calls at runtime without explicit schema","Limited to analyzing declared tool schemas and integrations; cannot detect vulnerabilities in the underlying tool implementations themselves","No built-in support for custom security rules — users must rely on predefined vulnerability patterns unless they fork and extend the scanner"],"requires":["CLI environment (Linux, macOS, or Windows with WSL)","Workflow definitions in supported formats (YAML, JSON, or Python agent code)","Read access to agent configuration files and tool schemas"],"input_types":["YAML workflow definitions","JSON agent configurations","Python agent code with tool decorators","OpenAPI/JSON Schema tool specifications"],"output_types":["JSON vulnerability report","CLI formatted security findings with severity levels","SARIF format for IDE/CI integration","Structured remediation recommendations"],"categories":["safety-moderation","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.tool.schema.validation.and.analysis","name":"tool-schema-validation-and-analysis","description":"Parses and validates tool schemas (OpenAPI, JSON Schema, function signatures) declared in agent configurations to detect unsafe parameter types, missing input validation, and overly permissive function signatures. Analyzes tool definitions against security patterns (e.g., detects if a tool accepts arbitrary shell commands, file paths without sanitization, or database queries without parameterization). Builds a tool dependency graph to identify chains of tools that could be exploited sequentially.","intents":["I want to ensure my agent's tools have proper input validation and don't accept dangerous parameter types","I need to detect if my agent can chain multiple tools together to escalate privileges or access restricted resources","I want to validate that tool schemas match security best practices (e.g., no arbitrary code execution, no unvalidated file access)","I need to understand the attack surface of my agent's tool ecosystem before deployment"],"best_for":["Agent developers designing tool integrations with security-first approach","Security architects reviewing agent capability models","Teams building multi-tool agents with complex tool dependencies"],"limitations":["Cannot validate the actual implementation of tools — only analyzes declared schemas, so a tool marked as 'safe' in schema may have unsafe implementation","Tool dependency graph analysis is limited to explicitly declared tool calls; cannot detect dynamic tool invocation patterns","No semantic understanding of tool semantics — cannot detect logical vulnerabilities (e.g., a tool that appears safe in isolation but dangerous when combined with another tool)"],"requires":["Tool schemas in OpenAPI 3.0+, JSON Schema, or Python function signatures with type hints","Explicit tool registration in agent configuration"],"input_types":["OpenAPI specification files","JSON Schema definitions","Python function signatures with type annotations","Tool registration manifests"],"output_types":["Validation report with schema compliance issues","Tool dependency graph (DOT or JSON format)","Risk assessment per tool (high/medium/low)","Remediation suggestions for unsafe schemas"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_2","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.prompt.injection.vulnerability.detection","name":"prompt-injection-vulnerability-detection","description":"Scans agent prompts and system messages for patterns that could enable prompt injection attacks, such as unvalidated user input being concatenated directly into prompts, missing delimiters between user and system content, or insufficient guardrails against instruction override. Uses pattern matching and semantic analysis to detect where user-controlled data flows into LLM inputs without sanitization. Identifies risky prompt construction patterns like f-strings with untrusted variables or template injection vulnerabilities.","intents":["I want to find places in my agent where user input could be injected into prompts to override instructions","I need to detect if my agent's system prompt is vulnerable to jailbreak attempts through tool outputs","I want to validate that my agent properly separates user input from system instructions using delimiters or structured formats","I need to audit my agent's prompt templates for injection vulnerabilities before production deployment"],"best_for":["Agent developers building user-facing agentic systems","Security teams auditing LLM agent prompts for injection risks","Teams implementing prompt security best practices"],"limitations":["Pattern-based detection may produce false positives for legitimate prompt construction patterns","Cannot detect semantic prompt injection attacks that don't match known patterns","Limited to analyzing prompt templates in code; cannot detect injection vulnerabilities in dynamically generated prompts at runtime","Does not validate the actual robustness of prompts against sophisticated jailbreak attempts — only detects structural vulnerabilities"],"requires":["Agent code or prompt definitions accessible as text","Python or YAML agent configurations with prompt definitions"],"input_types":["Python agent code with prompt strings","YAML agent configurations with system messages","Prompt template files (Jinja2, Handlebars, etc.)","Agent framework code (LangChain, AutoGen, etc.)"],"output_types":["Prompt injection vulnerability report","Identified injection points with line numbers","Severity assessment (critical/high/medium)","Remediation suggestions (e.g., use structured formats, add delimiters)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.agent.capability.risk.assessment","name":"agent-capability-risk-assessment","description":"Analyzes the declared capabilities of an agent (tools, APIs, permissions, resource access) to assess the overall risk profile and potential for misuse. Evaluates what an agent could theoretically do if compromised or manipulated, including access to sensitive data stores, ability to modify systems, network access, and credential usage. Produces a capability matrix showing which resources the agent can access and flags high-risk capability combinations (e.g., database write access + email sending = potential data exfiltration).","intents":["I want to understand the full blast radius of my agent if it gets compromised or manipulated by an attacker","I need to ensure my agent has minimal necessary permissions and flag over-privileged tool access","I want to detect dangerous capability combinations that could enable data exfiltration or system compromise","I need to document what resources and systems my agent can access for compliance and audit purposes"],"best_for":["Security architects designing agent permission models","Teams implementing principle-of-least-privilege for agents","Compliance and audit teams documenting agent capabilities","Enterprise teams managing multiple agents with different privilege levels"],"limitations":["Assessment is based on declared capabilities only — cannot detect undeclared or implicit capabilities from library dependencies","Risk scoring is heuristic-based and may not reflect actual organizational risk (e.g., a tool marked 'high-risk' may be acceptable in your specific context)","Cannot assess runtime capability escalation (e.g., if an agent can load plugins or install packages dynamically)","Does not account for compensating controls or monitoring that might mitigate capability risks"],"requires":["Complete agent configuration with all declared tools and permissions","Access to tool definitions and their required permissions"],"input_types":["Agent configuration files with tool declarations","Permission manifests or capability lists","API integration specifications","Resource access declarations"],"output_types":["Capability risk matrix (tools × resources × risk level)","Risk assessment report with severity scores","Dangerous capability combination alerts","Privilege escalation path analysis","Recommendations for capability reduction"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.ci.cd.pipeline.integration.and.gating","name":"ci-cd-pipeline-integration-and-gating","description":"Integrates with CI/CD systems (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins) to automatically scan agent code on commits and pull requests, blocking merges if security vulnerabilities exceed configured thresholds. Provides exit codes and structured output (JSON, SARIF) for CI/CD consumption. Supports policy-as-code to define organization-specific security rules (e.g., 'no agent can access production databases', 'all tools must have input validation'). Generates reports and metrics for security dashboards.","intents":["I want to automatically scan agent code in my CI/CD pipeline to prevent vulnerable agents from reaching production","I need to enforce organization-wide security policies on all agentic workflows across teams","I want to block pull requests that introduce high-risk agent capabilities or security vulnerabilities","I need to track security metrics and trends across my agent deployments over time"],"best_for":["DevOps and platform engineering teams managing agent deployments at scale","Organizations with strict security governance requirements","Teams using GitOps or infrastructure-as-code for agent management"],"limitations":["Requires CI/CD system integration setup and configuration — not a drop-in solution for all platforms","Policy-as-code requires upfront investment to define organization-specific rules","Cannot enforce runtime security policies — only pre-deployment scanning","Metrics and reporting require external dashboarding tools for visualization"],"requires":["CI/CD system with webhook or API access (GitHub, GitLab, Jenkins, etc.)","Ability to define and version control security policies","Agent code stored in version control system"],"input_types":["Git commit diffs with agent code changes","Pull request payloads","Agent configuration files from repository","Security policy definitions (YAML or JSON)"],"output_types":["CI/CD exit codes (0 for pass, non-zero for fail)","JSON vulnerability report for CI consumption","SARIF format for IDE integration","Security metrics and trend data","Policy violation reports"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-agentic-radar__cap_5","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.multi.agent.system.security.analysis","name":"multi-agent-system-security-analysis","description":"Analyzes security implications of multi-agent systems where multiple agents interact, delegate tasks, or share resources. Detects inter-agent communication vulnerabilities, privilege escalation through agent-to-agent delegation, resource contention issues, and unauthorized information flow between agents. Models agent interaction patterns to identify scenarios where one agent could be compromised to attack another or where agents could collude to bypass security controls.","intents":["I want to audit my multi-agent system to ensure agents can't escalate privileges by delegating to higher-privileged agents","I need to detect if agents can leak sensitive information to each other through shared resources or communication channels","I want to ensure that compromising one agent doesn't compromise the entire system","I need to validate that agent isolation and sandboxing is properly configured in my multi-agent deployment"],"best_for":["Teams building complex multi-agent systems with agent hierarchies or delegation patterns","Organizations deploying agents with different privilege levels that interact","Security teams auditing agent-to-agent communication and resource sharing"],"limitations":["Requires explicit definition of agent interactions and delegation patterns — cannot infer implicit agent communication","Cannot detect vulnerabilities in the agent orchestration framework itself (e.g., if the framework has a bug in privilege checking)","Analysis is based on declared agent capabilities and interactions; cannot detect runtime privilege escalation","Does not model sophisticated attack scenarios like timing attacks or side-channel attacks between agents"],"requires":["Multi-agent system configuration with explicit agent definitions and interaction patterns","Agent capability and permission declarations","Agent orchestration framework configuration"],"input_types":["Multi-agent system configurations (AutoGen, LangGraph, etc.)","Agent interaction diagrams or delegation rules","Agent capability and permission matrices","Shared resource definitions"],"output_types":["Multi-agent security analysis report","Agent interaction vulnerability matrix","Privilege escalation path analysis","Information flow diagram with security annotations","Isolation and sandboxing recommendations"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":24,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["CLI environment (Linux, macOS, or Windows with WSL)","Workflow definitions in supported formats (YAML, JSON, or Python agent code)","Read access to agent configuration files and tool schemas","Tool schemas in OpenAPI 3.0+, JSON Schema, or Python function signatures with type hints","Explicit tool registration in agent configuration","Agent code or prompt definitions accessible as text","Python or YAML agent configurations with prompt definitions","Complete agent configuration with all declared tools and permissions","Access to tool definitions and their required permissions","CI/CD system with webhook or API access (GitHub, GitLab, Jenkins, etc.)"],"failure_modes":["Static analysis only — cannot detect runtime-specific vulnerabilities that emerge from dynamic agent behavior or state-dependent tool calls","Requires workflow definitions to be explicitly defined; cannot scan agents that dynamically generate tool calls at runtime without explicit schema","Limited to analyzing declared tool schemas and integrations; cannot detect vulnerabilities in the underlying tool implementations themselves","No built-in support for custom security rules — users must rely on predefined vulnerability patterns unless they fork and extend the scanner","Cannot validate the actual implementation of tools — only analyzes declared schemas, so a tool marked as 'safe' in schema may have unsafe implementation","Tool dependency graph analysis is limited to explicitly declared tool calls; cannot detect dynamic tool invocation patterns","No semantic understanding of tool semantics — cannot detect logical vulnerabilities (e.g., a tool that appears safe in isolation but dangerous when combined with another tool)","Pattern-based detection may produce false positives for legitimate prompt construction patterns","Cannot detect semantic prompt injection attacks that don't match known patterns","Limited to analyzing prompt templates in code; cannot detect injection vulnerabilities in dynamically generated prompts at runtime","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.22,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.52,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.28,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:02.370Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:23.056Z","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=agentic-radar","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=agentic-radar"}},"signature":"xJRDzf4ZTwfBIweP4QuN6uI4+mOrjHFZ+5OGnx4RzeXKKVD4CSfb33lBw0+tMqQG52/eL4uYYmjt+j8tBjaPDw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T09:12:47.880Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/agentic-radar","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/agentic-radar","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=agentic-radar","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"}}