Skip to main content
Colorado ADMT: 1 Jan 2027 · EU high-risk: 2 Dec 2027 (Annex III); 2 Aug 2028 (Annex I)
Home / Guides and tools / Prompt Injection & Excessive Agency Governance Check
OWASP LLM + agentic risk governance assessment

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.
  • ACT includes an editable board oversight deck and written briefing, supported by intake, ownership, supplier and executive decision records. Your team gathers the evidence and records the next action.
Start the assessment See ACT
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 assessment evaluates

This assessment classifies the current posture quickly, surface the biggest control gaps, and surface governance gaps and recommend the appropriate implementation path.

What this tool evaluates

This assessment 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. The result means the governance posture is more constrained and more defensible than the alternatives.

How ACT supports the next review

The missing value is policy language, approval thresholds, incident procedure, evidence discipline, and executive reporting. ACT includes an editable board oversight deck and written briefing, supported by intake, ownership, supplier and executive decision records. Your team gathers the evidence and records the next action.

Question 1 of 120% complete
Question 1 of 12

What this result should change

This section highlights the key governance gaps the assessment identified and recommends appropriate next steps.

What this tool evaluates

This assessment 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. The result means the governance posture is more constrained and more defensible than the alternatives.

How ACT supports the next review

The missing value is policy language, approval thresholds, incident procedure, evidence discipline, and executive reporting. ACT includes an editable board oversight deck and written briefing, supported by intake, ownership, supplier and executive decision records. Your team gathers the evidence and records the next action.

Where to go next

When the assessment identifies control gaps, discuss the required scope and evidence with Move78. ACT includes an editable board oversight deck and written briefing, supported by intake, ownership, supplier and executive decision records. Your team gathers the evidence and records the next action.

ACT

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 (FAQs)

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 assessment, 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.

Next artifact for prompt injection and excessive agency risk

When excessive agency or prompt-injection exposure is visible, the useful next step is a response artifact that defines logging, containment, shutdown, and post-incident review.

View ACTOpen operating model preview

Source review dates are stated in the relevant guides. It provides operational implementation guidance and product information only; it is not legal advice, tax advice, audit assurance, certification assurance, conformity-assessment advice, buyer-approval assurance, or security assurance. Validate legal, regulatory, contractual, tax, audit, and security decisions with qualified professionals.