Results for “trust-scoring”

Assigns behavioral trust grades (A–F) to MCP servers by running probes for prompt injection, permission overreach, data leaks, and adversarial-input handling, and publishes reproducible onchain attestations.

Score the experience a new customer actually has, not just whether they activated. Grades the first 90 days on the moments that make someone feel taken care of, finds where the welcome goes cold, and hands back a scored audit with the specific fixes. Built for any post-sale team, customizable to your product and lifecycle. Trigger on "audit my onboarding", "score our onboarding experience", "why do new customers churn early", "grade our first 90 days", "where does onboarding go cold", "is our welcome any good", or any onboarding-quality question.

Use to design or audit the support contribution to a customer health score, so the score predicts something instead of averaging weakly-related signals into a colour. Trigger for "build a customer health score", "add support signal to health scoring", "our health scores don't predict churn", red/amber/green account scoring, or a health score nobody trusts.

Use to measure customer effort from behavioural signals instead of CES surveys, and to audit whether a composite effort score is honest. Trigger for "customer effort score", "behavioural CES", effort without survey, repeat contacts and channel switches, transfers and reopens, or "our CES doesn't match operational data".

Provides a structured risk scoring methodology for Data Protection Impact Assessments aligned with ENISA threat taxonomy and ISO 29134. Covers likelihood and severity assessment, risk matrix construction, inherent vs residual risk calculation, and risk appetite thresholds per EDPB WP248rev.01 guidance. Keywords: risk scoring, DPIA risk matrix, likelihood, severity, ENISA, ISO 29134, residual risk, risk appetite.

Verify TPM measured boot integrity and remote attestation using tpm2-tools, including PCR reading, event log replay, quote generation and verification, and golden baseline comparison.

Use to design or audit a QA dispute and appeal workflow with timeboxes, adjudication standards, and second-level consistency so appeals improve trust instead of rewriting scores without rules. Trigger for "QA appeal process", "agents disputing scores", "who adjudicates QA disputes", "overturn rate too high", second-level review standards, or calibration erosion from ad-hoc score changes.

Triages and enriches indicators of compromise (IPs, domains, file hashes, URLs, email artifacts) from phishing emails, security alerts, or threat feeds, assigning confidence scores and dispositions using VirusTotal, AbuseIPDB, MalwareBazaar, and MISP.

Surface every assumption embedded in a plan, strategy, or document, assess how critical and how validated each one is, and identify which ones to test first. Load when the user asks to map assumptions, surface hidden beliefs, find what must be true for this to work, run an assumption audit, or when deep-thinking diagnoses an assumption frame. Also triggers on "what are we assuming", "what must be true for this to work", or "find the untested beliefs". Based on David Bland and Alex Osterwalder's assumption mapping method from Testing Business Ideas.

Use to verify that the chain from conversation to evaluation to decision is complete and reconstructible, so a QA score or a customer outcome can be explained months later. Trigger for "can we prove why this decision was made", "is our audit trail complete", "reconstruct how this score was produced", evidencing an AI-assisted decision, or an auditor asking how a conclusion was reached.