Use this checklist before you answer an AI agent security review.
Buyer AI reviews usually get harder when the thread moves past generic model policy and into system access. The real blocker becomes narrower: which tools the agent can touch, which actions can mutate state, where human approval interrupts execution, how service accounts are scoped, what gets logged, and what is blocked outright. Use this checklist to package those facts before you draft the final answer.
This checklist is for the SaaS team receiving the buyer or counsel questionnaire, not the buyer sending it. It is operational packaging, not legal advice.
The seven control questions you need to answer cleanly
Connected systems
Name every system the agent can access in the reviewed workflow: product DB, CRM, ticketing, docs, cloud storage, email, CI, analytics, or internal tooling. Buyers lose trust when the tool list is implied instead of explicit.
Read versus write boundary
Separate retrieval from mutation. The reviewer wants to know whether the agent can only read data, draft recommendations, create records, change configuration, send messages, or execute commands.
Approval gates
List which actions stop for human review, which roles can approve them, and what evidence the approver sees before release. "Human in the loop" is too vague on its own.
Blocked actions
State what the agent cannot do: production deploys, billing changes, outbound communications, deletion, privilege escalation, or customer-visible writes without approval.
Credential scope
Explain whether the agent uses per-user auth, service accounts, API keys, or delegated tokens, and how those credentials are limited by role, workspace, environment, or endpoint.
Audit trail
Show what gets logged: prompts, tool calls, inputs, outputs, approvals, execution results, failures, retries, and owner notes. A reviewer wants to know what can be reconstructed after an incident.
Recheck triggers
Document when the answer must be refreshed: new tool access, a broader workflow, model-provider change, customer-segment expansion, privilege change, or a new mutating action.
Practical checklist
| Control area | What to capture | What weak answers sound like |
|---|---|---|
| Tool inventory | Name the exact apps, APIs, databases, queues, and file stores in scope. | "The agent connects to internal systems." |
| Action boundary | State which actions are read-only, draft-only, or mutating. | "The agent helps automate workflows." |
| Approval model | Show who approves what, before which action, and in what interface. | "Humans supervise the output." |
| Credential model | Describe service-account scope, role mapping, and secret handling. | "Access is secured." |
| Logging | List the execution events, approvals, and failures preserved for review. | "We keep logs." |
| Failure behavior | Explain what happens on timeout, unsafe response, missing context, or blocked action. | "The system handles errors automatically." |
| Scope exclusions | State what the answer does not cover yet. | "This applies generally to our AI." |
Use the shortest follow-on route
AI agent workspace
Use this when you want one browser-only place to map tools, write boundaries, approval stops, credential scope, audit trail, and then copy the final answer language.
Open AI agent workspaceTool-access review
Use this when the checklist is complete and the buyer wants one written explanation of systems touched, write boundary, service-account scope, and auditability.
Open AI agent reviewApproval gate template
Use this when the real objection is autonomy itself and the reviewer wants the exact human-review stops, blocked actions, and escalation rules.
Open approval gate templateFree async teardown
Use teardown when the public trust page or live buyer thread still feels fuzzy and you want a blunt 3-bullet gap read before you answer.
Request AI agent gap readEvidence map
Use this when the control answer is mostly clear but the reviewer wants the audit proof, owner, review date, or approval evidence behind one boundary.
Open evidence mapCopy this internal prompt before drafting the answer
Workflow reviewed: [name the exact agent workflow]
Connected systems: [list every system or API the agent can touch]
Read-only actions: [list]
Mutating actions: [list]
Approval gates: [what stops for review, who approves, where]
Blocked actions: [list what is not allowed]
Credential scope: [service account, role, environment, token limits]
Audit trail: [what is logged and where]
Failure path: [what happens on unsafe action, timeout, or missing context]
Scope exclusions: [what this answer does not cover]
Next recheck trigger: [what change forces review of this answer]
FAQ
When is this the right first step?
Use it when the buyer stopped asking broad questionnaire questions and started asking about tool access, autonomous action, approval stops, or service-account scope.
When is the broader packet better?
Use the packet route when procurement, security, privacy, and counsel all need the same fuller artifact, not just the agent-control answer block.
What if the workflow changes often?
Keep the checklist as the stable internal fact set, then refresh the answer whenever the tool list, write boundary, model provider, or approval model changes.
Need the answer itself, not just the checklist?
Use the tool-access review for the main answer, the approval-gate template for autonomy objections, or the answer builder when this needs to sit beside the broader AI questionnaire response plus a reusable starter bundle.