AI Security Architecture Review
Make safer AI architecture decisions before deployment.
We identify where trust, identity, data, authorization, agent permissions, RAG components, MCP integrations, and cloud assumptions could fail before an AI system reaches production.
Business problem
Security teams are often asked to approve AI architecture without enough evidence about hidden trust assumptions, weak identity boundaries, unsafe data flows, overprivileged agents, insecure integrations, missing approval controls, unclear ownership, or insufficient monitoring. This review turns design uncertainty into safer decisions.
Client receives
Architecture risk analysis, architecture threat model, control gap analysis, prioritized findings, practical design recommendations, and an executive briefing.
Review domains
Scope is adjusted to the system, evidence, and client priorities.
Architecture
System architecture, data flows, trust boundaries, APIs, cloud integrations, and deployment controls.
Access
Identity, authorization, service accounts, agent permissions, MCP server access, and approval paths.
AI layers
RAG design, prompt and policy boundaries, tool invocation, guardrails, and model gateway decisions.
Operations
Monitoring, logging, governance, auditability, incident readiness, and control ownership.
How the outcome is produced
- Architecture and data flow review
- AI threat modeling
- Trust boundary analysis
- Control gap identification
- Framework mapping where useful
- Prioritized remediation roadmap
Consultant-developed deliverables
Architecture threat model, review memo, control gap analysis, risk register, evidence matrix, framework alignment matrix, prioritized remediation roadmap, executive briefing, and validation plan.
FAQ
Do you review systems before they are built?
Yes. Early reviews are often the most useful because architecture and permission decisions are still easier to change.
Can findings map to compliance requirements?
Yes, where in scope. Mapping can reference OWASP, NIST AI RMF, NIST SSDF, SLSA, ISO 27001, SOC 2, and CIS Controls, but it is not certification.
Can the review remain local?
Yes, if your environment and evidence workflow support it. Sensitive material should use an approved secure channel.
What is required to begin?
A system overview, architecture diagrams, data classifications, identity model, integration list, deployment model, and key stakeholder availability.
Need assurance before approval?
Request an independent architecture review before deployment commitments harden.