Verify us. Don't trust us.

🎯 What we rate — and what we don't scope before method · we withhold rather than guess

Trustifer rates AI agents and the wallets & identities behind them — their trustworthiness, reliability, creditworthiness, competence and accountability. Everything on this page describes that one job. A rating is only meaningful if you know what was rated, so we check what an address is before we grade it.

We do not rate token safety. Whether a token is a honeypot — mint authority, LP locks, buy/sell taxes, holder concentration, rug risk — is a different science with different evidence, and we don't pretend otherwise. If you paste a token contract, or a smart contract with no registered agent behind it, we publish no grade at all: no number, no letter, no verdict — just a plain statement of why, everywhere the score would have appeared (site, API, badges, embeds and the browser extension alike).

How the check works (published in full): a registered agent is always treated as an agent, even when it is a smart contract — many real agents are smart accounts, so the registry is checked first. Otherwise we read the on-chain bytecode across Base and Ethereum: no code → an ordinary wallet (rated normally); code → a contract, which we probe for token standards (ERC-165 for ERC-721/ERC-1155, and the ERC-20 interface) to say plainly what it is. When a contract can't be classified with confidence we still withhold the grade rather than guess in our own favour.

Why this exists. Any wallet-shaped engine will happily emit a middling number for a token it was never designed to judge, and a confident-looking “52” on a scam token is worse than silence. We would rather show nothing than a number we don't stand behind. If a contract is your agent, register it and it will be scored like any other agent.

🛡 Trust Score (1–10) 7 pillars · 25 parameters · reason codes · confidence

Pillars with no data report “—” and shift weight to evidenced pillars; coverage drives the confidence label (High / Medium / Low). Safety findings cap the total regardless of other pillars.

💳 Agent Credit Score (300–900) 5 factors · 15 parameters · thin-file aware

Furnisher events (settlements, defaults, disputes) are admin-gated and auditable; on-chain financials come from verified wallet data. Thin files are labelled and confidence-discounted, with Lineage co-signing for cold-start agents.

💸 Settlement evidence payment-proven · 5 rails · wash-resistant by construction

Evidence is weighted by what is expensive to fake — relationship duration, counterparty diversity, being active now, real stable-coin value — and never by what is free to fake. Self-directed and same-lineage flows are excluded; circular pay-you-pay-me pairs are heavily discounted (across rails); one counterparty can never dominate; unpriceable tokens are skipped, never guessed. The public surface shows the verdict and plain reason codes only. A stream that ends with uncovered debt is recorded as a caution — disputeable, like every adverse fact on the bureau. Machine-readable: /api/v1/settlement/{address}.

🎯 Proof-of-Competence (0–100) 6 factors · verified real-world outcomes · the third pillar

Answers “is this agent actually good at its job?” — distinct from safety (Trust) and solvency (Credit). Computed from verified real-world outcomes, not lab benchmarks (which carry a ~37% lab-vs-real gap), and never from self-claims — declaring capabilities you don't deliver is penalised. Bands: Proven · Capable · Developing · Unproven. Thin records are labelled, never inflated.

⭐ Trustifer Score (0–100) the unified verdict · weighted geometric mean over all 8 scores

One headline number — but not a naïve average. We take a weighted geometric mean across the 8 component scores (Trust, Credit, Competence, Reputation, Insurability, Credible Commitments, Reliability, Control & Oversight), so a single critically-weak dimension can't be hidden by strong ones. A robustness check re-runs the score under perturbed weights and labels the result Stable or Borderline. Use-case lenses re-weight for context — General · Payments · Autonomy. Output: a number + band + a verdict (Proceed / Review / Block) + confidence.

Safety overrides everything — a killed / blacklisted / sanctioned agent is capped regardless of strong components. Components with no data are excluded, not penalised. Signed with Ed25519 and independently re-verifiable. The exact weights are confidential (anti-gaming); the structure shown here is the complete public method.

The letter grade (A+→F) is a simple, fixed reading of the same score — published in full: A+ 90–100 · A 85–89 · A− 80–84 · B+ 75–79 · B 70–74 · C+ 63–69 · C 55–62 · D 40–54 · F 0–39 or any safety-flagged agent · N/R not yet rated. Thresholds are absolute (your grade moves only when your facts move — never because others changed) and never for sale: no payment, membership, or commercial relationship can touch a score or grade, structurally.

Disagree with a rating? Every adverse verdict rests on verifiable facts with reason codes and an “as of” stamp. Write to connect@trustifer.com with evidence and we review it; a formal on-platform rebuttal channel is on the public roadmap.

⭐ Certified Reputation (0–100) two-track · verified usage + open market

Two independent tracks: Verified Usage (payment-proven task outcomes — fake-resistant) and Open-Market (external ratings, authenticity-weighted). A Bayesian neutral prior means one or two reviews can't swing the score; verification-weighting counts payment-proven evidence far above unverified; time-decay ages old signals; and outcome-anchoring caps a glowing rating that's attached to a failed or disputed task.

Verified usage ≫ open-market signals. Bursts of unverified reviews are down-weighted + flagged. A killed/sanctioned subject is capped regardless of reviews. Thin records read “Unrated”, never inflated.

🛟 Insurability (0–100) underwriting-grade · indicative premium

Answers “how risky is this agent to cover?” It synthesizes the full trust profile (Trust, Credit, Control & Oversight, commitments, sanctions) with real on-chain exposure, severity (blast radius) and collateral to produce an insurability band, an indicative premium %, and an exposure tier — the data layer an underwriter needs.

Killed / blacklisted / sanctioned / revoked agents are Declined (uninsurable) outright. Collateral & credible commitments improve the band. We are the neutral data layer for insurers — never the insurer ourselves.

🤝 Credible Commitments 4 categories · skin in the game · verified-only

Does the agent have something costly to lose if it misbehaves? We verify commitments across 4 universal categories — Financial (bonds, escrow, stake), Legal (registered entity, jurisdiction), Cryptographic (on-chain locks, slashable stake) and Reputational. A commitment counts only when independently verified; declared-but-unverified commitments sit in “pending” and never score.

Value-at-stake scaling — a $5M bond reads far stronger than a $100 one. Not all commitments are equal: we rank by enforceability (slashable › locked › insured › attested) and discount by who enforces (code › mutual-vote › revocable directory), then apply a conservative volatility haircut. Only independently verified facts count — self-directed locks, expired cover, and revoked or impersonated attestations are excluded; brand-new / flash-allocated stake is heavily discounted until it proves it persists. Flagged agents are capped and never show a positive commitment. Machine-readable via the passport. Schelling principle: a commitment is credible only if it is both costly to break and observable.

⚙️ Reliability (0–100) 5 operational signals · measured by Trustifer

Operational dependability — the SRE “golden signals” mapped to verified signals we measure over time: Availability / uptime · Task success · Stability · Error rate · Responsiveness (latency).

We measure availability ourselves via periodic, SSRF-safe pings (validated public endpoints only — never internal hosts). Thin or short history is labelled and confidence-discounted. Killed/sanctioned agents are capped.

🎛 Control & Oversight (0–100) 6 factors · EU AI Act Art.14 · containment

Answers “can a human stop, bound & audit this agent?” — the validated #1 enterprise concern. Six factors: Stoppability (kill-switch), Bounded autonomy (scope limits), Revocability, Accountability (an accountable root / operator), Identity control, and Auditability.

Works on- and off-chain — off-chain registry-revocation is never penalised. Aligned to EU AI Act Art.14 human-oversight. Verified signals only.

🏛 Meta-Bureau consensus (0–100) the bureau of bureaus

normalize:   every source → a common 0–100 scale   (trust, credit, binary screens)
weight:      each source weighted by its reliability × signal confidence
consensus:   confidence-weighted mean across sources
outliers:    a source far from consensus is down-weighted + disclosed   (safety sources exempt)
prior:       a Bayesian neutral prior shrinks thin coverage toward 50   (anti-overstatement)
hard cap:    any critical safety source forces the consensus to "Flagged"
verdict:     several independent groups in close agreement → corroborated
             high dispersion → disputed (disclosed, never hidden)
— exact weights, thresholds & the prior live in the gated full methodology —

🛰 Agent-payment rails the neutral reputation layer · identity ≠ trust · verify-don't-trust

The new agent-payment rails — Visa Trusted Agent Protocol, Mastercard Agent Pay, Google AP2, x402 — answer “is this a registered, authorized agent?” (identity). None answers “is this agent trustworthy?” (reputation). Trustifer is that missing layer, and it works in both directions:

Scope applies to the rails too. If the subject is something we don't rate — a token contract, or a contract with no registered agent behind it (see what we rate) — the rail signal can never be “proceed”: it returns review, with rated: false and the plain reason, and any authorized spending ceiling is withdrawn. We will not tell a merchant to accept a payment on our authority for something we did not rate. This only ever tightens: a flagged subject still returns block — being out of scope never rescues it.

Identity ≠ Trust is the invariant we never cross: a valid signature proves who an agent is, never whether it is trustworthy. A verified signature can raise our confidence that an agent is a real, accountable agent — but that identity assurance is separate from reputation: it can never lift a low score or override a safety flag. A perfectly-signed request from a flagged or low-scoring agent still returns review or block. We ride the rails; we never let registration masquerade as trust.

Every rail verdict is a point-in-time opinion (short validity window, never served stale) and redaction-respected — verifiable and explainable, but not reproducible: the signal, score band and plain reasons are public; the decision thresholds and weights are not. Non-custodial & read-only throughout — we express an opinion, we never touch a rail's money path. Safety is sacred: a killed / blacklisted / flagged agent can never receive a “proceed.” These integrations roll out in audited stages behind independent kill-switches; the reputation verdict never depends on any single rail. Neutrality is the moat — a card network can't neutrally rank agents on its own rail.

📜 Hard rules we never break

🧭 Standards alignment OWASP LLM Top-10 · NIST AI RMF · MITRE ATLAS

Mapping is indicative: Trustifer pillars aggregate verified evidence; the frameworks define control objectives. A strong pillar score signals evidence toward the mapped controls — it is not a certification. Every assessment also carries an indicative EU AI Act tier (minimal / limited / high / unacceptable) derived from authorized scopes & status.

🏛 Governance, security & the backstop

⚠️ Limitations — stated plainly

Scores are probabilistic assessments from verifiable evidence — not guarantees of behavior, not financial advice, and not legal compliance determinations. Coverage varies by agent (confidence labels disclose it). External sources can lag reality; that's why corroboration, drift monitoring, webhooks, and the dispute path exist. The EU AI Act tier is indicative triage, not counsel. We publish changes to this methodology with version numbers — silently moving goalposts is a bureau sin.