Free browser-only screen. No login. No saved answers. Built to diagnose the gap, not replace the implementation work.
Home / Guides and tools / Prompt Injection & Excessive Agency Governance Check
OWASP LLM + agentic risk lead magnet

Prompt Injection & Excessive Agency Governance Check

Assess in under 5 minutes whether prompt injection and excessive agency could turn the current AI deployment into an enterprise control failure.

4–5 minutes Browser-only scoring No stored answers Prompt injection and excessive agency

This screen is for leaders who need a governance answer before a copilot, assistant, or agent gets broader tool access, more autonomy, or access to higher-impact data.

  • Checks content trust, tool permissions, approval thresholds, kill-switch readiness, and logging discipline.
  • Flags whether the current design is governable, pilot-only, materially exposed, or unsafe for enterprise deployment.
  • Routes to ACT Tier 2 when the missing layer is policy, incident controls, evidence, and executive oversight.
Start the assessment See ACT Tier 2 Professional
Enterprise AI governance scene focused on prompt injection, tool abuse, controlled autonomy, kill-switch readiness, and executive oversight.
Enterprise AI governance scene focused on prompt injection, tool abuse, controlled autonomy, kill-switch readiness, and executive oversight.
OWASP-aligned governance screen

What this screen is for

This page exists to classify the current posture quickly, surface the biggest control gaps, and route the buyer to the correct paid implementation path without giving away the workbook or document layer.

What this tool evaluates

It evaluates whether the current autonomy design can be defended with controlled inputs, bounded actions, human approvals, shutdown discipline, and usable evidence.

What a low score does not mean

A lower score does not mean there is no prompt injection risk. It means the governance posture is more constrained and more defensible than the alternatives.

Why ACT Tier 2 is the bridge

The missing value is policy language, approval thresholds, incident procedure, evidence discipline, and executive reporting. That sits in ACT Tier 2.

Question 1 of 120% complete
Question 1 of 12

What this result should change

The purpose of this screen is to classify posture quickly, highlight the biggest gaps, and route the organization to the correct next step without giving away the paid implementation layer.

What this tool evaluates

It evaluates whether the current autonomy design can be defended with controlled inputs, bounded actions, human approvals, shutdown discipline, and usable evidence.

What a low score does not mean

A lower score does not mean there is no prompt injection risk. It means the governance posture is more constrained and more defensible than the alternatives.

Why ACT Tier 2 is the bridge

The missing value is policy language, approval thresholds, incident procedure, evidence discipline, and executive reporting. That sits in ACT Tier 2.

Where to go next

Use the paid bridge when the screening result shows structural control gaps that need policy, procedure, evidence, lifecycle discipline, or implementation ownership rather than another free quiz.

ACT Tier 2 Professional

Get the implementation documents, procedures, evidence assets, and governance pack this free screen intentionally does not generate.

OWASP Top 10 For Large Language Model Applications

Read the OWASP Top 10 For Large Language Model Applications guide to understand the underlying control themes and risk categories.

OWASP Top 10 Agentic AI

Read the OWASP Top 10 Agentic AI guide to understand the underlying control themes and risk categories.

Agentic AI Governance

Read the governance guide for the policy, ownership, and control architecture behind this screen.

This page is informational only. It does not provide legal advice, compliance certification, or an audit conclusion.

Frequently asked questions

Practical answers about what this governance check does, what it does not do, and how to read the result.

What does this tool actually check?
It checks whether prompt-injection and excessive-agency risks are being governed with real boundaries, approval thresholds, shutdown controls, evidence trails, and named ownership. It is a governance screen, not a model benchmark.
Who should use this screen?
Use it if you run or are planning a copilot, assistant, agent, or tool-using workflow that may read untrusted content, trigger actions, or reach higher-impact data and systems.
Does a green result mean prompt injection is solved?
No. A stronger result only means your current governance posture is more defensible than the weaker states. It does not mean the underlying technical risk disappears or that no further testing is needed.
Why are human approval thresholds weighted so heavily?
Because unsafe autonomy becomes materially more dangerous when the system can act without a clear approval threshold. Human review is one of the few controls that can interrupt a bad chain before it becomes an operational incident.
What does a pilot-only result mean?
It means some controls exist, but they are not strong enough for confident scale. The safer interpretation is limited use while you tighten policy, escalation, evidence, and action boundaries.
Does this tool store or transmit my answers?
No. This tool runs entirely in your browser. Your selections are not stored, synced, exported, or transmitted by the page itself.