Local pre-execution security monitor for AI coding agents that evaluates tool calls before execution and can allow, log, request approval, redact/make-safe or block actions.
Harden Agentic Integrity Foundation (AIF) is a local pre-execution monitor for AI coding agents. It evaluates supported tool calls before they run and can allow an action, log it, ask for approval, make it safe, or block it. Harden currently documents integrations with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Antigravity CLI, Kiro, Hermes and OpenClaw, using native hooks where available and an MCP proxy fallback for other supported paths. 1
The control point is useful because coding agents can inherit a developer's access to shells, repositories, infrastructure and remote systems. AIF is not a general endpoint-security replacement: its protection depends on the actions it can observe, the supported integration path and the accuracy of its proprietary monitor.
The individual tier is $0 forever, with no account or credit card required, local decision history and telemetry opt-out. Enterprise pricing is custom and adds compliance reporting, air-gap/zero-telemetry mode, managed installation, SLAs and custom terms. 1
Hardware and platform requirements are meaningful. Harden lists 16 GB RAM minimum, 24 GB recommended and 15 GB disk; the full local model requires Apple-silicon macOS with Metal, while the CLI/daemon also supports Linux x86-64. Windows is not supported. Those constraints reduce accessibility despite the unusually low monetary barrier. 1
Harden publishes its own evaluation across SLEIGHT, AgentHazard, SABER and LinuxArena and reports stronger results than its stated frontier-model monitor baselines. Those figures are useful evidence of a deliberate evaluation program, but they are vendor-authored and are not treated as independent efficacy validation. 1
LinuxArena itself is an independent control setting for agents operating in live multi-service software environments, including sabotage tasks such as exfiltration, malware, data tampering and access-control bypass. Its documentation shows why this class of monitor is relevant, but it does not independently reproduce Harden's run; AiToolMap therefore uses it as benchmark-context evidence, not as confirmation of Harden's score. 2
AIF is a defensive security product, but false negatives matter because permitted agent actions can affect source code, credentials, infrastructure and production systems. A pre-execution monitor should therefore be one layer alongside least privilege, sandboxing where appropriate, protected production credentials, change review and independent logging. Harden's local-first architecture, telemetry opt-out and enterprise air-gap option reduce some data-exposure concerns, while its proprietary model and absence of broad independent exact-product testing limit external scrutiny. 1
The fixed 50-source AiToolMap panel found no eligible exact-product numeric user-rating evidence: 45 sources returned no relevant exact-product result and five were inaccessible in the audit path. Product Hunt shows launch/community activity, but Product Hunt ratings are excluded from Rating v1.0 numeric inputs. 3
No AiToolMap hands-on testing was performed.
AIF is best suited to developers, DevSecOps and security teams that are increasing coding-agent autonomy and want a local decision layer between the agent and consequential tool execution. The free tier makes it practical for individual evaluation before an enterprise rollout. 1
It is less suitable for Windows-first teams, low-memory machines, organizations requiring open-source inspectability of the monitor, or security programs that require independently replicated efficacy evidence before relying on a control in production.
local-first monitoring; pre-execution enforcement rather than post-hoc alerting; seven documented agent integrations; multiple dispositions beyond simple allow/block; free individual tier; no account requirement; telemetry opt-out; enterprise air-gap option; explicit compatibility matrix; relevant benchmark program. 1
newly launched; proprietary monitor; no eligible exact-product numeric user-review evidence; vendor-authored efficacy results; no Windows support; substantial local RAM/disk requirements; protection cannot be assumed for actions outside observable/supported paths; high-consequence use means false negatives remain material.
Products matched by shared tasks, audience, workflow, product type and capabilities.