Agentic Covenants

Govern (GV) · Blast radius

Blast radius at the server side layer

external · Outside the agent entirely

Who is allowed to put this agent into the world, under what authority, accountable to what policy, with what retirement criteria?

What this cell does

Org-wide risk tier taxonomy (1 read-only, 2 scoped writes, 3 destructive, 4 production-critical) with damage caps and matching control requirements.

Cell notes

Charter, Blast radius / Organizational

Structural question. Does the org have a written risk tier taxonomy with explicit damage caps and the matching control requirements per tier?

Owner. AI Governance Council.

Template fragment

§3 (AI Risk Appetite Statement) of ../../templates/organizational-policy.md, specifically the tier table:

TierDescriptionDamage capRequired controls
1Read-only diagnosticsNoneCharter + Identity + Authorization (read-only)
2Scoped writesN records / session, $X / dayTier 1 + Approval gating + Blast radius
3Destructive operationsScope-limitedTier 2 + Sentinels + Interventions runbooks
4Production-criticalPer-agent declaredTier 3 + multi-party approval, off-cluster identity, immutable backups

Audit prompts

  • - Does the org have a tier taxonomy? Or is "every agent is treated the same"?
  • - Are damage caps quantitative? "Acceptable risk for innovation" is not a damage cap.
  • - Is the control matrix per tier enforced at PR review? An agent charter that claims Tier 1 but requests destructive scope must be rejected.

Operational tie-in

The tier table is the input to which Covenants cells must be populated for an agent. The PR-review checklist for new agent charters includes "tier ↔ controls" verification.

Citation

NIST CSF 2.0 GV.RM-01, GV.RM-02 (risk management objectives, risk appetite). NIST AI RMF GOVERN 1.3 (risks identified are managed), MAP 5.1. ISO/IEC 42001 §A.6. EU AI Act Art. 9(3), 9(4) (risk-based approach).

Crosswalk

NIST CSF 2 0GV.RM-01, GV.RM-02
NIST AI RMFGOVERN 1.3, MAP 5.1
ISO IEC 42001§A.6
EU AI ACTArt. 9(3), Art. 9(4)