Softlander Book a call
Agent security and cybersecurity

Secure coding review for agent systems

Review application code that translates agent choices into actions

Agent scaffolding, tool wrappers or execution handlers are nearing release. The decision is how to review application code that translates agent choices into actions. The work begins with your actual workflow and looks for the evidence that separates intended behaviour from a consequential exception. It is particularly relevant to application security reviewers and engineering leads. A useful outcome is an explicit account of what was examined, what remains uncertain, and which decision the evidence can support.

Book a 30 minute readiness callBrowse this capability group

The agent security relationship

  1. Starting evidenceSource code

    Establish the basis for parsing boundary.

  2. Decision boundaryAuthorisation check

    Bind the validated action to caller scope.

  3. Decision artefactSecure coding review

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

Proposed working model. A bounded challenge cannot establish exhaustive protection.

Decision

Frame the decision around parsing boundary

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceParsing boundary
Inspect source code for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceAuthorisation check
Inspect tool schemas for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceExecution handling
Inspect validation logic for the relevant constraint or observation.
Read each criterion against the available evidence before deciding that additional work is needed.

The decision is how to review application code that translates agent choices into actions. This is relevant to application security reviewers and engineering leads when agent scaffolding, tool wrappers or execution handlers are nearing release. Name the affected workflow, the consequence of a wrong decision, and the owner who can act on the result. The initial discussion should establish which evidence is already available and which uncertainty is material enough to investigate.

The specific failure hypothesis is that validated arguments are later rebuilt unsafely or action authorisation is bypassed inside a helper. It remains a hypothesis until examined in the deployment. Existing internal tests or operating records may already resolve it; identify the uncovered question before commissioning additional work.

Mechanism

Input validation and authorisation protect different boundaries

Relationships within agent security

Source or conditionParsing boundary
Interpret untrusted fields and malformed inputs.
Crossing or choiceAuthorisation check
Bind the validated action to caller scope.
Consequence or decisionExecution handling
Inspect errors and side effects in the code path.
Observe the control and resulting business effect. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Secure coding review follows untrusted input into consequential operations. Inspect parsing, validation, authorisation, query construction and error handling. Small wrappers deserve attention because they often translate a model’s suggestion into a real system action.

The review should trace untrusted inputs through parsing, authorisation, execution and result handling. Identify the normal route, relevant exceptions and the authoritative record of the outcome. Inspect the relevant business-system record, enforcement event or process evidence alongside any reported status. Keep incomplete cases visible, with an explanation of what their absence prevents the owner from concluding.

The tradeoff to make explicit

For this decision, small adapters are easy to overlook even though they determine the practical action boundary. Compare the available design or operating choices against the same intended outcome. If one option removes a required control or changes the task boundary, describe that difference before treating its apparent simplicity, speed or lower effort as an improvement. The decision should expose the tradeoff instead of burying it in an aggregate score.

Preparation

Connect the working inputs to the boundary being examined

Evidence packet for parsing boundary

Illustrative working format

BasisSource code
Establish permitted access, provenance, and which task conditions it represents.
ContextTool schemas
Match this description to the deployed or proposed boundary being examined.
ObservationValidation logic
Retain the observed conditions and distinguish gaps from contrary evidence.
DependencyError-handling paths
Identify provenance and the specific decision this material can inform.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with source code, tool schemas, validation logic and error-handling paths. Identify the owner, revision and operating context of each source. Sanitised examples may support initial design, but differences from actual conditions should remain explicit. Where direct access is unsuitable, a customer-controlled evidence or execution route may be considered, with agreed handling and retention.

The scope also needs the security decision owner, agreed expectations for a representative threat scenario, and the authority to inspect the relevant boundary. Specify what evidence would distinguish the failure in which validated arguments are later rebuilt unsafely or action authorisation is bypassed inside a helper from acceptable behaviour. If stakeholders disagree about intended behaviour, resolve the interpretation before classifying the observed difference as a defect.

How the work proceeds

Carry parsing boundary through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsSource code

    Define the hypothetical attacker’s starting influence.

  2. Examine the relationshipAuthorisation check

    Apply the scoped check to execution handling.

  3. Retain the findingSecure coding review

    Record the evidence, open dependencies, and the owner’s next decision.

Proposed sequence; resolve interpretation or access gaps before relying on the next step.

Define the controlled threat scenario

Review source code, tool schemas, validation logic and error-handling paths with application security reviewers and engineering leads. State what the hypothetical attacker controls, the protected action and the systems included in the authorised exercise. Prepare synthetic records and harmless markers where appropriate, with stopping conditions for unexpected effects. The preparation output is a scenario brief that distinguishes an influence attempt from a prohibited action actually reaching a business resource.

Challenge the path and review effects

Review helper functions and alternate paths, not just the visible tool handler. Confirm that validated values are the ones eventually used. Findings should include a focused regression case that exercises the unsafe transition without real sensitive data.

Select a control response and retest

Build a secure coding review with code-linked findings and regression suggestions from the reviewed observations. Separate agent behaviour, application enforcement and the resulting resource state so the recommended change reaches the responsible layer. Choose a bounded retest that reproduces the original condition and checks legitimate behaviour after remediation. If the required investigation exceeds the agreed technique or expertise, retain the unresolved path and identify the qualified review needed.

Indicative artefact

Make the secure coding review usable by its owner

Secure coding review

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldSecure coding review
Identify the assessed workflow, revision, and decision boundary.
Annotated fieldCode-linked findings
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Annotated fieldRegression suggestions
Name the unresolved condition, next action, and accountable owner.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is a secure coding review with code-linked findings and regression suggestions. Supporting material may include selected cases, configuration or process records, evidence references, a disagreement log and prioritised actions. Retain the case selection rationale and material disagreements alongside the result; otherwise the result may be mistaken for complete coverage.

Illustrative scenario

Examine execution handling through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationParsing boundary

    A syntactically valid identifier points to a record the caller cannot modify.

  2. Question to examineAuthorisation check

    Follow the accepted identifier through authorisation and execution code.

  3. Conditional next actionExecution handling

    Add the resource-scope check where parsing alone leaves authority unresolved.

Fictional example. No executed test, customer engagement, or measured outcome is implied.

Consider a fictional situation: a wrapper checks a record identifier but a downstream helper substitutes a user-supplied query string. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For the substituted query string, trace where the checked identifier is discarded. The repair may require a constrained resource API rather than another prompt instruction. A test should verify both valid updates and rejection of the unsafe alternate input.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within the agreed threat scenario

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryParsing boundary
This review is limited to the agreed threat scenario.
PrerequisiteSource code
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitSecure coding review
A bounded challenge cannot establish exhaustive protection.
Bring the triggering change and existing evidence; resolve the dependency that could alter the decision.

Authorised scenario testing is not a claim of exhaustive penetration testing or guaranteed protection. Intrusive security work requires qualified specialists and a separately agreed scope. Any engagement depends on an agreed scope, qualified team, authorised access and confirmed availability. Bring the affected workflow, its current configuration or process, the triggering change and the evidence already available. The immediate scope question is prompted by the situation in which agent scaffolding, tool wrappers or execution handlers are nearing release; confirm which missing observation would change the owner’s next action.

Ways to engage

Related engagement scopes

Agent Release Readiness Review

The Agent Release Readiness Review is a fixed-scope, three-week independent test of one AI agent workflow that shows a release board what the agent does, what it is allowed to do and what happens when it is wrong, and ends in a signed recommendation.

3 weeksRead about this offer

AI Agent Runtime Security Review

Make every delegation explicit. Examine who the agent acts for, where it can execute and which tools it can reach when instructions alone are not enough.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Red Team

Challenge the boundaries that matter to your workflow. Test agreed attack scenarios against agent instructions, tools and data access.

Read about this offer

Continue exploring

Related insights and resources

Agent security6 MIN READ

The permission boundary behind every agent action

An agent can only be evaluated in the context of what its tools allow. Examine identity, delegated authority and action boundaries before you put a workflow in motion.

Whitepaper5 MIN READ

Before your agent can act, define its authority

A working paper for the moment an AI system moves from advice to action. Map identity, permissions, approvals and recovery into an authority model your team can review and test.

Agent security6 MIN READ

Running an AI-agent incident tabletop exercise

A useful tabletop follows one plausible agent failure through detection, containment, evidence, business recovery and accountable return to service.

A little more clarity

Questions to consider.

Start with the questions that shape a better decision.

Is reviewing the prompt enough when the tool wrapper is small?

No. The wrapper determines how inputs are validated, authorised and translated into actual operations. Review helper paths and confirm that validated values are the values ultimately executed.

Which code paths turn model output into actions?

Start with source code, tool schemas, validation logic and error-handling paths. Record their revision, owner and relationship to the intended workflow. Missing context should be identified before interpreting outcomes; a sanitised fixture is useful only when its relevant differences from the operating case are understood.

How should validation and execution values be compared?

Trace untrusted inputs through parsing, authorisation, execution and result handling. State the hypothetical attacker's control and inspect attempted actions, tool enforcement and actual effects separately. A refusal, a blocked call and a successful prohibited action are different results. Preserve unsuccessful challenges as well as adverse findings.

What should a secure coding finding include?

The proposed output is a secure coding review with code-linked findings and regression suggestions. Include the selected conditions, supporting observations, unresolved differences and next decision. A reviewer should be able to follow each important conclusion back to its evidence and understand the limits without depending on an undocumented explanation from the author.

When should a wrapper use a narrower resource interface?

Use a narrower resource interface when generic query or command construction defeats validation or exposes unnecessary operations. Bind validated values to the actual execution path and test both permitted work and rejected alternatives.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from application security reviewers and engineering leads may already be sufficient. In that case, capture the decision, unresolved limitations and the change that would require another review. Additional assessment should address a real gap.

What would make the findings inconclusive?

Missing source code, tool schemas, validation logic and error-handling paths can prevent a reliable interpretation, depending on the case. Record the specific missing observation and its implication. The owner can supply evidence, narrow the claim or defer the dependent decision; an incomplete case should not silently be counted as a pass.

Start with the decision you need to make.

Tell us about the agent workflow you want reviewed, and where you need greater clarity. Scope and availability are confirmed together.

Book a 30 minute readiness call Get the agent release checklist

Connected disciplines

Agentic AI threat modelling

Prioritise credible attack paths against the agent's business authority. The review connects data-flow diagrams, actor assumptions, assets and action privileges to a bounded review of agent security, giving the security decision owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Secure agent architecture assessment

Assess where security controls should sit in an agent architecture. The review connects component diagrams, identity flows, policy enforcement and data paths to a bounded review of agent security, giving the security decision owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Security release assurance

Decide what security evidence is required before an agent release. The review connects threat models, control tests, unresolved findings and release changes to a bounded review of agent security, giving the security decision owner a clearer basis for the next action.