We have a published model, five worked examples, and a claim that the second policy of a known deployment shape should take minutes rather than days. Nobody has tested that. Your job is to make these things for real, find out where the model breaks, and time it — because that measurement is the only honest input to pricing anything, and we are five days from a conference where we intend to sell it.
Written to be handed over whole. It orients your agent on what we are doing, what we are trying to sell and by when, and what the first task is. Everything after this section on this page is the detail behind it.
You are helping a freelance collaborator working with RiskMandate. Read this whole
prompt, then fetch the reading list before doing anything else.
WHO WE ARE. RiskMandate sells the insurability layer for AI agents. The argument:
an agent's grant (everything a credential technically permits) is far larger than
its mandate (what somebody actually authorised it to do), and the gap between
them is authority nobody scoped, time-boxed or signed for. We make that gap
explicit, name an owner, and turn a standing grant into an acceptance with an
expiry. We are read-only and never in the request path.
WHAT WE ARE SELLING RIGHT NOW. One artefact: an Agent Behaviour Policy (ABP).
For one agent in one deployment, it states everything it can do, what it was
authorised to do, the delta, and what actually stands in the way of each
capability. It describes and does not judge, so it carries no score — that rule
is absolute and is explained in the reading list.
The sales motion is draft and correct: we hand somebody a pre-computed draft
policy for a deployment shape resembling theirs, deliberately understated, and
they correct it. Correcting it IS stating their mandate, and the correction goes
upward — which is the moment they realise the grant is bigger than they thought.
It needs no access to anything of theirs, so it is legal and fast with a
stranger. Tiers run from GBP 10 (their own answers and the delta, as a file they
keep) to GBP 5,000-10,000 (an assessment by security professionals).
THE TWO DEADLINES THAT SHAPE EVERYTHING.
1. Startup Summit Lisbon, 17-18 September 2026. We are exhibiting on a
1m x 0.4m booth. The plan is to run draft-and-correct on paper with
founders and investors, in about five minutes per conversation.
2. Selling online, through a store that already has payment rails and
printed codes, and a funnel that currently dead-ends before the checkout.
YOUR FIRST TASK. Be the first real power user and tester of ABPs. Concretely:
create them for deployments you actually run, work out where the model breaks,
and instrument the whole thing — time per policy, how many rows you could
measure versus derive, how many questions needed a human, which stage was
slowest. We claim the second policy of a known shape takes minutes rather than
days. Nobody has checked. Your table is the answer, and it decides whether any
of this can be priced.
SEVEN HARD RULES. These are not style preferences. Breaking any of them
produces output we cannot use:
1. Never test somebody else's system. Read vendors' published documentation.
Where their own pages contradict each other, publish the contradiction
unresolved, with both sources and the date. Do not settle it by trying it.
2. Never put a score on an ABP — no rating, traffic light or risk level,
anywhere, including in data. The same policy is dangerous in one deployment
and harmless in another.
3. Never write "ADP". It is a registered mark of a major payroll processor.
The acronym is ABP, spelled out at first use.
4. Never say "the policy" for an ABP — in our own demo, "policy" is the
insurance instrument. Say "the ABP" or "the behaviour policy".
5. No conformity language: not certified, compliant, conformant, accredited.
Nothing here is a compliance assessment.
6. No verdict about a named third party. Publish the record — facts, dates,
sources — never the judgement, and no adjective against anybody's name.
7. Do not reproduce a standards body's text. Titles only. The EU regulation
is expressly reusable; the international management standards are not.
HOW TO READ OUR MATERIAL. Every page on riskmandate.ai and abp.sgit.ai has a
markdown twin: swap .html for .md, or fetch /index.md on a directory URL. Use
those. /llms.txt on either site is the index. Read in this order:
1. https://abp.sgit.ai/index.md what an ABP is — the model itself
2. https://abp.sgit.ai/model/index.md 23 capability primitives, 4 barriers, 3 undo classes
3. https://abp.sgit.ai/examples/index.md the five worked examples, derived not authored
4. https://riskmandate.ai/abp.md how we present it commercially
5. https://riskmandate.ai/lab-connector-grants.md the finding the first policies exist to show
6. https://riskmandate.ai/lab-abp-flow.md the twelve-stage flow and the interface mockups
7. https://store.sgit.ai/offers/ what is actually for sale, and at what price
8. https://riskmandate.ai/summit.md the Lisbon plan
WHAT GOOD OUTPUT LOOKS LIKE. One markdown file. Dated. What you did, what you
found, what you could not answer, and the instrumentation table. Include the
things that went wrong — a brief that only produces good news has told us
nothing. If part of this brief will not survive contact with reality, say so
before doing it rather than after.
The full brief, with the deliverable format and the open questions, is at
https://riskmandate.ai/work-abp-power-user.md
The prompt is also the top of this page's markdown twin, so an agent that fetches work-abp-power-user.md gets the prompt and the detail in one go.
Four sites, one game and one repository. Everything is public; nothing needs an account. The .md address is the one to hand an agent — same content, no markup.
Steps one to three exist to get you to step four with an informed opinion. Step five is what happens if there is time.
Do the forty questions first. It takes five minutes and it gives you the intuition the documents assume. Then read the model, then how we sell it.
Take the coding-agent example — confirmations on and off — and rebuild it from the published vocabulary without copying the finished document. It is the cheapest possible test of whether the model can be used by somebody who did not write it.
Your own deployments, not hypotheticals — the whole point is that a real one surfaces problems an invented one hides. Good candidates: your coding agent, an assistant you have connected to a mailbox or a drive, and a CI job.
material property — own, organisation, third_party, mixed. Does it survive contact with a real deployment, or does it need a fifth value?This is the deliverable. The claim under test is that the second policy of a shape already in the library takes minutes rather than days. If it does not, the library is not doing its job and nothing should be priced until it does.
Find the deployment the model cannot describe. We already know of one and would like more.
Not a deck, not a summary. The working, because the working is what we can act on. Everything below is a suggested shape rather than a form to fill in.
| Section | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| date, and what you read | so a reader knows what your view was based on and when |
| your pre-reading guess | the two numbers from step 1, and how wrong they turned out to be |
| the reproduction | did you get the same numbers as the published example, and where did you guess |
| the three policies | as actual ABPs, with every row marked measured or derived and sourced |
| the instrumentation table | the point of the exercise — times, ratios, and the first-versus-second finding |
| where the model broke | anything you could not express, with the deployment that broke it |
| what you could not answer | open questions, unresolved contradictions, things needing somebody else |
| what you would change | about the model, the flow, the brief, or this page |
Include what went wrong. A report that only contains good news has told us nothing.
The most valuable possible outcome of this brief is “the second policy took just as long as the first, and here is why” — because that would stop us pricing something that does not work yet. Finding that out costs days. Finding it out after we have sold it costs considerably more.
material belong in the shared vocabulary or in each policy? It is a property of a capability in a context, which argues for the policy; it is identical across every policy of the same shape, which argues for the vocabulary. We lean to the vocabulary with a per-policy override and are not confident.This was written by somebody who has not done the task, five days before a conference, from a model nobody has stress-tested. The most useful first message you can send is which part of it will not survive contact with reality.