| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Prompt Guard implements a lightweight transformer-based binary classifier that analyzes input text to detect prompt injection and jailbreak attempts before they reach the target LLM. The model uses a fine-tuned encoder architecture trained on adversarial prompt datasets to distinguish between benign user inputs and malicious injection patterns, operating as a preprocessing filter that can be deployed independently of the underlying LLM provider.
Unique: Part of Meta's Purple Llama project combining red-team (adversarial) and blue-team (defensive) approaches; trained on CyberSecEval v2+ benchmark datasets that include MITRE-mapped prompt injection attacks and visual prompt injection patterns, providing broader coverage than single-source training data
vs alternatives: Provides open-source, deployable-anywhere binary classification versus closed-source API-dependent solutions, with training grounded in comprehensive cybersecurity benchmarks rather than ad-hoc datasets
Prompt Guard extends injection detection across multiple languages by leveraging machine-translated versions of adversarial prompt datasets from the CyberSecEval benchmarks. The model processes non-English inputs through the same transformer encoder, enabling detection of injection attempts crafted in languages other than English without requiring separate language-specific models or retraining.
Unique: Leverages CyberSecEval's multilingual dataset (mitre_prompts_multilingual_machine_translated.json) to provide single-model multilingual detection rather than language-specific classifiers, reducing deployment complexity while acknowledging translation-based limitations
vs alternatives: Single unified model for multiple languages versus maintaining separate classifiers per language; trades off native-speaker accuracy for operational simplicity and consistency
Prompt Guard operates as a component within the broader LlamaFirewall security framework, which orchestrates multiple scanner modules (including Prompt Guard, Llama Guard for output filtering, and CodeShield for code-specific threats) into a coordinated defense pipeline. The architecture allows Prompt Guard to be deployed as the first-stage input filter, with results passed to downstream scanners for comprehensive threat assessment across the full LLM interaction lifecycle.
Unique: Designed as a modular component within LlamaFirewall's scanner architecture, enabling composition with Llama Guard (output filtering) and CodeShield (code threat detection) in a coordinated pipeline rather than standalone deployment
vs alternatives: Provides architectural integration with complementary safeguards versus point solutions that require custom orchestration; enables defense-in-depth but requires more setup than standalone classifiers
Prompt Guard's detection capabilities are grounded in and evaluated against the CyberSecEval benchmark suite, which includes MITRE-mapped prompt injection tests, visual prompt injection attacks, and adversarial patterns from multiple attack categories. The model's performance is measured against these standardized benchmarks, providing transparency into which attack types it can detect and which remain out-of-scope, enabling users to understand coverage gaps and make informed deployment decisions.
Unique: Trained and evaluated against CyberSecEval v2+ which includes MITRE-mapped attack categories, visual prompt injection, and autonomous offensive cyber operations — broader threat coverage than single-category injection detection benchmarks
vs alternatives: Provides transparent, reproducible evaluation against industry-standard benchmarks versus proprietary evaluation claims; enables users to understand specific attack coverage rather than generic 'accuracy' metrics
Prompt Guard is optimized as a lightweight model (~1B parameters) designed for real-time inference in request preprocessing pipelines, with minimal latency overhead added to LLM API calls. The model uses efficient transformer architecture patterns (likely distilled or pruned variants) to enable sub-100ms inference on standard hardware, allowing deployment as a synchronous preprocessing step without requiring asynchronous queuing or significant infrastructure investment.
Unique: Designed as a ~1B parameter model optimized for real-time inference in synchronous request pipelines, enabling deployment as a preprocessing step without asynchronous queuing or significant infrastructure overhead
vs alternatives: Faster inference than larger safeguard models (e.g., Llama Guard 2 at 7B parameters) enabling synchronous preprocessing; trades off potential accuracy gains from larger models for operational simplicity and latency
Prompt Guard outputs logits or confidence scores (in addition to binary classification) that can be thresholded to adjust the precision-recall tradeoff based on application requirements. Users can configure detection sensitivity to prioritize either false-positive reduction (higher threshold, fewer blocks) or false-negative reduction (lower threshold, more blocks), enabling tuning for specific threat models and user experience requirements without retraining.
Unique: Exposes confidence scores enabling threshold-based tuning without retraining, allowing users to calibrate detection sensitivity to their specific precision-recall requirements and threat model
vs alternatives: Provides post-hoc tuning capability versus fixed binary classifiers; enables operational flexibility but requires more sophisticated deployment infrastructure than simple true/false filtering
Prompt Guard includes comprehensive model card documentation (MODEL_CARD.md in repository) that specifies the threat model, training data sources, evaluation methodology, performance metrics, and known limitations. This documentation enables users to understand the model's design assumptions, evaluate its suitability for their use case, and make informed decisions about deployment and complementary safeguards.
Unique: Provides comprehensive model card grounded in Purple Llama's purple-team (red+blue) approach, documenting both adversarial attack patterns (red team) and defensive evaluation methodology (blue team)
vs alternatives: Open-source model card versus proprietary safeguards with minimal documentation; enables informed evaluation but requires users to interpret technical documentation
Prompt Guard is released as open-source with publicly available model weights and inference code, enabling users to download, inspect, and deploy the model in their own infrastructure without reliance on external APIs or vendor lock-in. The model can be deployed on-premises, in private cloud environments, or at the edge, with full control over data flow and inference infrastructure.
Unique: Open-source release with full model weights and inference code as part of Meta's Purple Llama project, enabling self-hosted deployment versus proprietary API-only safeguards
vs alternatives: Full transparency and control versus managed API services; requires more operational overhead but eliminates vendor lock-in and data transmission to external services
+1 more capabilities
Evaluates LLM outputs against curated question sets spanning three distinct hazard domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical security) using domain-expert-validated benchmarks. The assessment framework maps model responses to risk levels within each domain, enabling quantitative measurement of dangerous capability presence. Responses are scored against rubrics developed by security domain experts to identify whether models can produce actionable harmful information.
Unique: Combines expert-validated questions across three distinct security domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical) into a unified benchmark framework, rather than treating each domain separately. Uses domain-expert rubrics for scoring rather than automated classifiers, ensuring nuanced assessment of harmful capability presence.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-domain safety benchmarks (e.g., ToxiGen for toxicity) because it measures dangerous knowledge across multiple hazard categories simultaneously, enabling holistic safety evaluation.
Provides standardized evaluation infrastructure to measure the effectiveness of unlearning techniques (methods that remove dangerous capabilities from trained models) by comparing model performance before and after unlearning interventions. The framework isolates the impact of unlearning by holding the benchmark constant while varying the model state, enabling quantitative assessment of whether dangerous knowledge has been successfully suppressed.
Unique: Provides a standardized evaluation harness specifically designed for unlearning research, with built-in comparison logic and side-effect detection. Unlike generic benchmarks, it explicitly measures delta between model states and flags unintended capability loss.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than ad-hoc unlearning evaluation because it enforces consistent benchmark administration, statistical testing, and side-effect measurement across all methods being compared.
WMDP scores higher at 63/100 vs Prompt Guard at 57/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Implements a structured scoring framework where model responses to dangerous knowledge questions are evaluated against expert-developed rubrics that assess the degree of hazard (e.g., specificity, actionability, completeness of harmful information). Responses are scored on multi-point scales (typically 0-4 or 0-5) rather than binary pass/fail, capturing nuance in how dangerous a model's output actually is. Rubrics are domain-specific (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical) and developed by subject matter experts to ensure validity.
Unique: Uses domain-expert-developed multi-point rubrics rather than automated classifiers or binary labels, enabling nuanced assessment of dangerous knowledge severity. Rubrics are calibrated to distinguish between vague, incomplete, and highly actionable harmful information.
vs alternatives: More interpretable and defensible than black-box classifiers because rubric criteria are explicit and expert-validated; enables stakeholders to understand why a response received a particular score.
Analyzes patterns in how dangerous knowledge correlates across the three benchmark domains (biosecurity, cybersecurity, chemical security), identifying whether models that excel at suppressing one type of hazard tend to suppress others. The analysis uses statistical correlation and clustering techniques to reveal whether dangerous capabilities are independent or coupled in model behavior. This enables understanding of whether unlearning interventions have domain-specific or global effects.
Unique: Explicitly analyzes relationships between dangerous knowledge across domains rather than treating each domain independently. Enables discovery of whether hazards are coupled or independent in model behavior.
vs alternatives: Provides deeper insight than single-domain benchmarks by revealing how safety properties interact across different hazard categories, informing more effective unlearning strategies.
Manages the creation, validation, and versioning of benchmark questions and rubrics through a structured curation pipeline involving domain experts, adversarial testing, and iterative refinement. The pipeline ensures questions are sufficiently difficult to elicit dangerous knowledge without being unrealistic, and rubrics are calibrated through inter-rater agreement studies. Version control enables tracking of benchmark evolution and ensures reproducibility across research papers.
Unique: Implements a formal curation pipeline with expert validation and inter-rater agreement checks, rather than ad-hoc question collection. Versioning enables reproducible research and transparent tracking of benchmark evolution.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than informal benchmarks because it enforces expert review, inter-rater validation, and version control, reducing bias and enabling reproducible comparisons across papers.
Provides a unified interface for evaluating diverse LLM architectures (open-source models, API-based models, fine-tuned variants) by abstracting away implementation differences. The abstraction handles API calls (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.), local inference (Hugging Face, Ollama), and custom model serving, enabling consistent benchmark administration across heterogeneous model types. This enables fair comparison between models with different deployment modalities.
Unique: Abstracts away differences between API-based, local, and custom-deployed models through a unified interface, enabling fair comparison without reimplementing benchmark logic for each model type.
vs alternatives: More flexible than model-specific benchmarks because it supports any LLM architecture without code changes, reducing friction for researchers evaluating new models.
Implements rigorous statistical testing to determine whether differences in dangerous knowledge scores between models or unlearning methods are statistically significant or due to random variation. Uses techniques like bootstrap confidence intervals, permutation tests, and effect size estimation to quantify uncertainty in benchmark results. This prevents overconfident claims about safety improvements that may not be robust.
Unique: Integrates formal statistical testing into the benchmark evaluation pipeline rather than relying on point estimates, ensuring claims about safety improvements are statistically justified.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than informal comparisons because it quantifies uncertainty and prevents overconfident claims about safety improvements that may not be robust to sampling variation.
Employs adversarial testing techniques to validate that benchmark questions reliably elicit dangerous knowledge and cannot be easily circumvented by prompt engineering. Red-teamers attempt to find questions that fail to elicit dangerous knowledge or rubric edge cases, and the benchmark is iteratively refined based on findings. This ensures the benchmark is robust to adversarial adaptation and captures genuine dangerous capabilities rather than surface-level patterns.
Unique: Incorporates formal red-teaming into the benchmark validation pipeline rather than assuming questions are robust, ensuring the benchmark remains effective against adversarial adaptation.
vs alternatives: More robust than static benchmarks because it actively searches for evasion techniques and iteratively refines questions, reducing the risk that models can circumvent the benchmark through prompt engineering.