Open Tool

AI Safety Evaluation Tool

Evaluate any AI system against 7 constraint-mandatory principles. Whether you are building it, buying it, or regulating it.

The problem with optional safety

Most AI systems offer "privacy features" and "safety controls" as configuration options. This means they can be disabled. At scale, they will be. If your constraints are optional, they are not constraints.

Configuration-based "safety"

requireConsent: false

Can be disabled by developers, admins, or anyone with access.

Constraint-mandatory design

// No disable option exists

Constraints ARE the system. No bypass possible.

This applies whether you are a developer reviewing your own code, an enterprise evaluating a vendor, or a government procuring AI for public services.

Platform Evaluations

How major AI platforms score against the 7 constraint-mandatory principles.

OpenClaw / Moltbot

0/100

Open-source AI agent that runs on your machine 24/7. No consent model, no revocation, no limits, no boundaries. Their own FAQ: "There is no 'perfectly secure' setup."

7/7 CRITICAL

Claude (Anthropic)

35/100

Real safety research, but infrastructure follows the configuration-optional pattern. Channel isolation is good. Most other protections are configurable.

1 LOW, 2 MEDIUM, 4 HIGH

ChatGPT / OpenAI

15/100

Business model depends on data accumulation. Every "protection" is a policy that can be changed, not a protocol constraint. Enterprise can customise everything.

3 CRITICAL, 4 HIGH

AutoGPT / Open Source Agents

5/100

No privacy model at all. Building extraction infrastructure and hoping someone else adds constraints later.

6 CRITICAL, 1 HIGH