AI agents for cybersecurity companies
You sell vigilance — then your senior people spend evenings on questionnaires and report formatting. Agents take the document grind; your analysts keep the judgment calls.
Security questionnaires
Every enterprise deal arrives with a 300-row spreadsheet asking the same questions in new orders. Senior engineers answer them between incidents.
Report assembly
Assessment findings into client-ready reports: executive summary, severity tables, remediation steps — hours of formatting per engagement.
Lead and intake triage
Enquiries range from 'we've been breached' to tyre-kickers — and the urgent ones can't wait for Monday.
Built by people who treat least-privilege as identity: your agents run inside a published gate spec — the same one we'd show your SOC.
- →Drafts questionnaire responses — from your approved answer library and policy documents — consistent, current, and reviewed before send
- →Assembles assessment reports — findings from your tooling into your report template, severity-sorted, for analyst review
- →Triages inbound — separates the incident from the enquiry, escalates urgency immediately, books the rest
- →Maintains the evidence trail — compliance artefacts (SOC 2, ISO 27001 cycles) chased, collected, and filed on schedule
- →Keeps proposals moving — scoping notes into draft SOWs from your templates, for human pricing and sign-off
Your client data never becomes our problem
A security company's agent build has one non-negotiable: client-confidential data (findings, vulnerabilities, architectures) stays inside your boundary. Deployment is local-first — your tenancy or your hardware — with model-API calls configured for zero data retention where offered, and the agent scoped away from client-sensitive stores unless the workflow strictly requires them. The Cage's audit log is designed to survive your own red team's scrutiny; we expect you to test it, and we'll walk your team through the spec gate by gate. The full gate spec is published on The Cage page — bring whoever owns compliance to the call.
The split is simple: the agents take the repetitive work, your people keep the judgment. Nothing we build makes a decision a human should make — it drafts, checks, chases, and books, so your team does the work you actually hired them for.
Only what the workflow strictly requires, under your accounts, with zero-retention options configured where the provider offers them — and the spec names exactly what flows where, so you can put it in your own compliance story. Fully local model deployment is available where the answer must be 'nothing leaves'.
It can assemble them — timeline from your tooling, findings into your template. The analysis and the judgment calls stay with your analysts; the agent saves the formatting hours, not the thinking.
Please do. You own the code, the config, and the logs at handover — audit it, pen-test it, fork it. That's the ownership model working as intended.
Map where an agent pays back first
A Foundations Session against your actual workflows — ranked opportunities, payback math, fixed quote. The plan is yours to keep.
Book a Foundations Session →30 minutes · no pitch · if AI isn't the answer, I'll say so