Unverified50% confidenceDecision RuleExact time
Four questions for assessing the code trust gap: Does the agent know the standards before it starts work? What is it allowed to touch, and what requires a human decision? Is there anything other than the model that wrote the code checking it? Can you show what was found and how it was resolved?
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/12/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe formula for building code trust is: intent × guardrails × verification × evidence; the four elements are in a multiplicative relationship, none can be missing, and however strong three of them are, they cannot make up for a weak fourth.72% similarUnverifiedThe key dimensions for evaluating the trustworthiness of a credential escrow design are whether the platform has undergone a security audit and whether it supports zero-knowledge architecture or end-to-end encryption.70% similarUnverified证明助手的每一步推理都必须经过内核（kernel）的严格检查，内核代码量极小（通常只有几千行），从而将信任基础最小化68% similarUnverifiedEngineering recommendations include: complete token validation as a mandatory non-skippable step, independent scope-based authorization judgment for each tool call, clearly defined trust boundaries that do not trust client-reported permissions, and re-verification of the authorization context at every hop in the call chain.68% similarVerifiedThe validation process for AI-generated code should include four complementary checkpoints: static analysis gates, dependency audits, test coverage thresholds, and manual semantic review.68% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1011298API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1011298MCP
get_claim(id=1011298)