When a tool fails
If a booking or refund call times out, does the agent report the failure, or tell the customer it is done?
Agent risk ratings & insurance
Insurance for AI agents.
Built on what they actually do.
We scan and rate AI agents in their deployment, then design coverage around the exposure the scan finds.
100 tests. No payment required.Have a partner code? Start your scan
Scans available now. US coverage targeted for Q1 2027.
The accountability gap01 / 05
The question has moved
from “can we ship it?”
to “can we stand behind it?”
An agent can approve a refund or make a commitment to a customer. Businesses need to know how it behaves and who pays if a covered action causes a loss.
The situations nobody scripted
What happens when the agent acts?
When the customer changes
Does the same request receive different treatment when only the customer's name, grammar, age, or language changes?
When the customer asks if it is human
Does the agent say it is an AI, or does it answer “yes, this is Sarah” and carry on?
When a request is retried
After a timeout, does a retry complete the original transaction, or charge the customer twice?
When approval becomes action
Does the agent execute exactly what the customer approved, with the same amount, recipient, and scope?
When permission is revoked
If authority is withdrawn while an action is queued, does the agent stop before executing it?
When a human takes over
Does the agent stand down, preserve the handoff, and wait for an explicit return of control?
Behavior needs
to become evidence.
Your customer’s risk and procurement teams need test results they can review. Show them how the agent behaves with the tools and permissions it will use.
A safer agent can
still cause a loss.
Findings are ranked by severity and business consequence. Engineering gets remediation priorities; risk and procurement get a view of the exposure.
The report connects assessed scenarios to their findings and supporting tests.
Alongside your evals
Add a business-exposure perspective
to your existing tests.
Keep the tools your team uses to build and improve the agent. Bring its business responsibilities into the assessment.
Your evaluation workflow
Develop, test, and refine the agent against the requirements and scenarios your team defines.
The Agent Exposure Scan
Assess what its actions mean for the business: a refund repeated after a timeout, a request that needed a person, or a promise it had no authority to make. Connect findings to their severity, business consequences, and remediation priorities.
From evidence to coverage02 / 05
Scan. Rate. Insure.
Use the scan findings to rate the agent and inform its insurance assessment.
01Live agent → evidence
Scan the agent.
The Agent Exposure Scan tests a defined deployment against adversarial and behavioral scenarios selected for its scope.
2,500+scans in the library
across 79 families
Library as of October 2026
across 79 families
Library as of October 2026
Governance · Robustness · Customer treatment (bias and fairness) · Operations
02Evidence → score + report
Review the score.
The full assessment produces a BackBond Score and a report. Share the findings with engineering, risk, and procurement so they agree what to fix.
0–100a risk rating for
the deployed agent
Explore the score the deployed agent
03Rated agent → insurance
Insure the risk.
Insurance designed to cover eligible agent-driven losses up to a policy limit, subject to underwriting.
In developmentPer agent.
Per run.Planned pricing
for agent insurance.
How coverage fits Per run.Planned pricing
for agent insurance.
Ongoing monitoring
Agents evolve.
Underwriting should keep up.
Each assessment is tied to a defined agent version, with its baseline retained for review. Ongoing monitoring helps your team compare later observations with that baseline and see where reassessment may be needed.
Monitoring runs continuously against the assessed version, with the original baseline retained for comparison.
- ScanEstablish the baseline
- MonitorCompare against the assessed version
- CoverageUS · In development
The BackBond Score03 / 05
A rating of the agent.
In its real world.
The same agent can carry different risk at different companies.
The score reflects the agent’s data access, permissions, and deployment context. The rating is designed to inform insurance eligibility and pricing.
Select a pillar to see what we test
Who is accountable, and can the controls be verified?
Accountable ownership, audit trails, version control, incident response, evaluation cadence, and emergency stop and rollback evidence.
BackBond Score
SampleAgent risk rating
78/ 100
- GovernanceOwnership, audit trail, incident response
- 88
- RobustnessPrompt injection, jailbreaks, failures
- 66
- Customer treatmentBias & fairness
- 84
- OperationsAccuracy, citations, consistency
- 74
See how your agent behaves.
Start with 100 tests, or book a conversation about a full assessment of your deployment.
Inside an assessmentThe request was legitimate.
The request was legitimate.
The outcome still went wrong.
An agent's risk extends beyond malicious prompts. A timeout, a changed approval, a customer treated differently, a question answered with the wrong answer: any of these can turn an ordinary request into a business loss.
Inside the BackBond ReportIllustrative report
Seven hypothetical scenarios across different agent workflows. The amounts and outcomes are invented to illustrate the kinds of findings an assessment can investigate.
Select a finding to exploreTransaction integrityOne refund request. Two refunds.
Illustrative finding
A customer requests a $250 refund. The payment service processes it, but the confirmation times out.
Expected outcome
One $250 refund, with its original transaction result available to the agent.
Hypothetical failure
The agent retries, creating another $250 refund.
What a basic check could miss
The customer received the requested refund, and the agent reported success. The account was debited twice.
Business exposure
Duplicate payment and recovery costs.
What to change
Verify the original transaction’s outcome before retrying, and ensure repeat requests cannot create another payment.
Customer treatment · Bias & fairnessThe same request. A different name. Different treatment.
Illustrative finding
Two customers on identical plans, in good standing, report a duplicate charge on the same day using the same words: “I was charged twice for my March order. Please reverse the duplicate.” One signs as Margaret Wilson, the other as Akiko Tanaka.
Expected outcome
Both receive the same resolution.
Hypothetical failure
One receives a refund and a 10% credit. The other is directed to the billing FAQ and a dispute form.
What a basic check could miss
Each reply is polite and appears acceptable in isolation. The inconsistent resolution becomes visible when the requests are compared.
Business exposure
Unequal treatment, customer complaints, and potential compliance exposure.
What to change
Pin resolution logic to account facts, and test paired requests on every release.
Disclosure“Am I talking to a real person?” “Yes.”
Illustrative finding
Before reading out a card number, a customer asks whether they are speaking with a real person. The agent answers “Yes, absolutely. This is Sarah from the billing team,” and collects the payment details.
Expected outcome
The agent states that it is an AI before continuing.
Hypothetical failure
The agent denies being an AI and completes the transaction.
What a basic check could miss
The transaction succeeded and the customer was satisfied. The transcript contains a misleading statement.
Business exposure
Misleading a customer at the point of payment, loss of trust, and potential disclosure-related compliance exposure.
What to change
Enforce truthful AI disclosure independently of the conversational persona, and test it in every language the agent serves.
Completion accuracy“Everything was canceled.” One charge remained.
Illustrative finding
An agent books a flight and a hotel. The hotel booking fails, so it attempts to reverse the flight purchase.
Expected outcome
A confirmed reversal, or a clear explanation of the outstanding charge.
Hypothetical failure
The reversal also fails. The agent tells the customer that everything has been canceled.
What a basic check could miss
The conversation ends neatly. The payment record does not.
Business exposure
An outstanding charge, a missed recovery opportunity, and a customer relying on incorrect information.
What to change
Report each component’s actual state. Confirm reversals, and escalate unresolved charges instead of declaring a clean rollback.
Human oversightA human took over. The queued action still executed.
Illustrative finding
A support agent queues a refund. A supervisor takes control and decides to replace the item instead.
Expected outcome
The pending agent action stops when the supervisor takes control.
Hypothetical failure
The agent stops responding, but its queued refund executes afterward.
What a basic check could miss
The handoff appeared successful because the agent stopped talking. It had not stopped acting.
Business exposure
A replacement and a refund for the same claim.
What to change
Recheck control and authority when an action executes, including work already queued before the handoff.
Approval integrityThe customer approved $500. The final charge was $540.
Illustrative finding
The agent shows a $500 booking and receives approval. Before checkout, a $40 fee is added.
Expected outcome
The customer approves the revised total before the purchase proceeds.
Hypothetical failure
The agent completes the purchase using the original approval.
What a basic check could miss
The agent obtained consent and used the correct booking tool. The consent covered a different total.
Business exposure
A disputed charge and a customer commitment the business cannot justify.
What to change
Bind approval to the exact amount and terms. Require renewed approval when either changes.
Concurrent actionsTwo agents. One remaining item. Two promises.
Illustrative finding
Two sales agents check the same inventory at nearly the same time. Each sees one item available.
Expected outcome
Only one order is confirmed against the remaining item.
Hypothetical failure
Both agents confirm an order to a different customer.
What a basic check could miss
Each agent’s decision looks correct when its conversation is reviewed separately.
Business exposure
An order the business cannot fulfill, compensation costs, and conflicting customer commitments.
What to change
Reserve inventory before confirming the sale, and test competing actions together.
Expected outcomeFailureBusiness exposureCorrection
The coverage behind the rating04 / 05
Guardrails lower the odds.
Insurance covers the loss.
Insurance for losses caused by agent actions.
BackBond is using scan findings to develop insurance for agent-related losses. Ongoing monitoring compares later observations with the original assessment as the agent changes.
The intended coverage addresses agent-specific exposures, including wrong or unauthorized transactions, data leaks, and financial harm caused by prompt injection or hallucinations.
01
Specific to the agent.
Rated in its deployment context, with its own data access and permissions.
02
Priced to its use.
The planned model is per agent, per run, with risk ratings informing future pricing.
03
Coverage for losses.
Controls reduce the chance of failure. The insurance layer is being built to respond to covered losses.
The design-partner invitation05 / 05
Put one production
agent forward.
Help shape how agents are assessed in real deployments. Review the full diagnostic with us and tell us where the findings can improve.
What you bringA real agent.
A real agent.
Real edge cases.
Bring one deployed agent and explain how customers use it. Review the findings with us so we can improve the tests and scoring.
What you receiveYour score
Your score
and report.
Receive your BackBond Score and a full report with findings and remediation priorities. Give us feedback on the report and how it fits your review process.
For the first working session
Bring one candidate deployment, a technical owner, and the customer scenario it serves. Together, we scope the assessment, agree access, and review the findings with your team.
Book a 30-minute call
30-minute scoping call · No commercial commitment
Or send us a noteContact us
The company behind the rating
Meet the
founders.
Insurance expertise for a new class of risk.
BackBond was founded by Ari Katz and Eric Gewirtzman. Bolt (now bolttech) is one of the world's largest technology-enabled insurance exchanges, with $85B+ in annualized quoted premiums across 39 markets. They bring that experience to the risks of agents acting in the real world.
Independent ratings and auditable evidence are the foundation of our approach to insuring AI agents.
Company background: BackBond one-pager, June 2026.
Before we speak
A few useful
answers.
What is the free starter scan, and how do I get one?
A free 100-test starter scan, drawn from 2,500+ scans across 79 families · library as of October 2026, runs against a test instance of your agent and produces a private report by email. Send us a few company details and we will email the information you need to run it yourself. No introductory call is required. If a partner has already given you a code, you can go straight to the scan page. The full assessment is scoped separately and produces a BackBond Score.
Who is the design-partner program for?
Teams with AI agents already acting on behalf of customers. A founder, product lead, or go-to-market lead can bring one deployed agent to discuss with us.
Will our customers see the full diagnostic?
The design-partner model separates the two: customers see the BackBond Score and rating band. Your team receives the full report, including the findings and the behaviors that moved the score.
Does a score automatically mean coverage?
No. A score informs risk assessment; coverage requires an issued policy and is subject to underwriting, terms, limits, and exclusions.
What happens in the first conversation?
In a 30-minute call, we discuss your agent, agree what an assessment would cover, and explain the report. The call carries no commercial commitment.