Harden
Harden is a local security monitor that intercepts tool calls from autonomous coding agents before execution. Running on Apple Silicon Macs, it uses specialized cybersecurity LLMs to evaluate whether each action aligns with developer intent and organizational policy, blocking risky commands like production namespace deletion or credential exposure. It integrates natively with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other agents, redacts secrets from shell commands, logs all decisions locally, and suggests safer alternatives when blocking an action. The free tier requires no account or cloud logging; Enterprise plans add compliance reporting and air-gap deployment.
Harden is a local security monitor, integrating with Claude Code, Codex, GitHub and Bash. InnovaAI rates it 4.6 of 10 for agency adoption, best for Founder, Project Manager and Developer roles.
Agency Audit
Harden runs locally on Apple Silicon Macs to intercept and evaluate coding agent actions before execution, blocking unauthorized or risky commands while allowing legitimate work. It integrates with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other agents your developers already use. Adopt Harden if your agency deploys autonomous coding agents and needs to prevent accidental infrastructure damage, secret leaks, or policy violations without slowing down legitimate development workflows.
5recommended
40/mo
No paid plan published
Low
Illustrative scenario. Not a guarantee. Net capacity needs a verified paid base plan, and none is published for this service, so it is not modeled. Hours saved come from the service estimate; implementation, taxes, and unprovided usage charges are excluded.
- Founder handling autonomous agent execution monitoring
- Project Manager handling incident response and log review
- Developer handling secret and credential protection
- Your agency develops exclusively on Linux or Windows machines; Harden only runs natively on Apple Silicon Macs and does not support other architectures.
- Your team does not yet use autonomous coding agents or relies only on traditional IDE autocomplete; Harden's value is specific to pre-execution monitoring of agentic tool calls.
- You require compliance reporting, air-gap deployment, or MDM-managed installation; those features are only available on the Enterprise plan, which requires contacting sales and likely involves longer procurement cycles.
Internal Adoption Path
No paid plan published
40 hr/mo
5 seats × 8 hr each
$3,000/mo
modeled at $75/hr labor rate
No paid plan published
Illustrative scenario. Not a guarantee. No verified paid base plan is published for this service, so subscription cost and net capacity are not modeled. Implementation, taxes, and unprovided usage charges are excluded.
Platform Features
Core capabilities of Harden
Pre-execution tool-call evaluation
Harden intercepts every tool call from Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other supported agents before execution. A specialized cybersecurity LLM evaluates whether the action aligns with developer intent and organizational policy, blocking dangerous calls like namespace deletion or production restarts.
Secret redaction in shell commands
Automatically detects and redacts API keys, credentials, and secrets from Bash and Python commands before they execute or are logged. Prevents accidental credential exposure when agents construct shell scripts or API calls.
Block-and-steer safe retry
When Harden blocks a risky action, it suggests a safer alternative that accomplishes the same goal in a protected environment. For example, if an agent tries to delete a production namespace, Harden offers a restart in staging instead.
Local decision store and audit view
All agent actions and Harden decisions are stored locally on the developer's machine with no retention cap or external logging. Project Managers and Founders can inspect the audit trail to understand which calls were blocked, allowed, or made safe across all connected agents.
Native agent hooks with MCP fallback
Harden detects and integrates with Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity CLI, Cursor, Kiro, and other supported agents via native hooks. For unsupported agents, it falls back to an MCP proxy, ensuring coverage across your development stack.
No account or telemetry required
The free tier runs entirely locally on your machine with no account signup, cloud logging, or telemetry. Decisions are made on-device, making Harden suitable for teams with strict data-residency or privacy requirements.
What Makes Harden Different
Unique advantages vs similar tools in this niche
Pre-execution evaluation of agent actions
vs Traditional EDR and IAM tools that only monitor after the factHarden evaluates each action before it runs, preventing unauthorized changes rather than detecting them later.
Local model execution
vs Cloud-based security solutions that send data to remote serversThe model runs locally on Apple Silicon Macs, ensuring repository context and tool outputs never leave the developer's machine.
Context-aware reasoning
vs Simple rule-based security filtersHarden's model reasons over session history to understand when an action's meaning has changed, such as a profile switch or environment change.
Value Equation
Outcome-likelihood-time-effort assessment for Harden
Value math requires real pricing
The Value Equation (dream outcome × likelihood ÷ time × effort) feeds directly into ROI math. Harden has no published pricing, so we hold this section until real numbers are available.
Contact HardenPricing
Harden platform cost to your agency
Custom Pricing: Contact Vendor
Harden does not publish fixed pricing. Costs are determined based on your organization's size, feature requirements, and usage volume.
Agencies should request a demo or partner pricing directly from the vendor. Many enterprise platforms offer agency/reseller partner programs with volume discounts.
View Harden pricing pageMarket Intelligence
Offer + scale economics for Harden
Offer economics require real pricing
Offer economics, scale projections, and margin potential all depend on Harden's actual platform cost. Once pricing is published or shared with your agency, we'll compute the full breakdown here.
Contact HardenInvestment Decision Framework
Strategic vetting analysis for Harden
Situational Fit
Fit depends on your client mix
Buy If
4Your development team uses Claude Code or Codex for autonomous coding tasks 5+ hours per week and has experienced at least one incident where an agent attempted an unintended action like deleting a namespace or modifying production infrastructure.
Your Project Manager or Founder oversees agent-driven development and currently spends 2+ hours per week reviewing agent logs or remediating unintended changes; Harden reduces that review burden by blocking risky calls before they execute.
Your team stores secrets or API keys in shell environments and runs agents that interact with Bash or Python; Harden redacts secrets from commands before execution, eliminating a class of credential-exposure incidents.
You operate multiple autonomous coding agents across different projects and lack a centralized audit trail; Harden maintains a local decision store showing which calls were blocked, allowed, or made safe, giving your Founder or Operations lead visibility into agent behavior patterns.
Skip If
4Your developers work in a highly asynchronous, distributed environment where agent execution logs are rarely reviewed in real time; Harden's blocking and steering features only prevent incidents if someone is monitoring the session or has configured rules in advance.
Your agency develops exclusively on Linux or Windows machines; Harden only runs natively on Apple Silicon Macs and does not support other architectures.
Your team does not yet use autonomous coding agents or relies only on traditional IDE autocomplete; Harden's value is specific to pre-execution monitoring of agentic tool calls.
You require compliance reporting, air-gap deployment, or MDM-managed installation; those features are only available on the Enterprise plan, which requires contacting sales and likely involves longer procurement cycles.
Bottom Line
Harden runs locally on Apple Silicon Macs to intercept and evaluate coding agent actions before execution, blocking unauthorized or risky commands while allowing legitimate work. It integrates with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other agents your developers already use. Adopt Harden if your agency deploys autonomous coding agents and needs to prevent accidental infrastructure damage, secret leaks, or policy violations without slowing down legitimate development workflows.
Reality Check
Harden only runs on Apple Silicon Macs, limiting adoption to teams using that hardware. Setup requires configuring local decision rules and agent hooks per developer, which adds initial friction before the security payoff compounds.
Moderate effort: standard configuration with some customization needed
Academy for Harden
Work through it in order: the course for this service first, then the modules behind it.
Course for this service
Harden Agency Implementation, Securing AI Agent Workflows for Clients
Learn how to deliver Harden as a managed security service to development teams, positioning pre-execution agent monitoring as a compliance and risk-reduction offering. This course covers integrating Harden with Claude Code and Cursor across client environments, configuring organizational policies, building audit workflows for compliance reporting, and packaging agent security into retainer-based services.
Open the courseNo Academy modules are published for this service yet. Browse the full Academy
Why this category matters
The commercial case before the tooling.
Core concepts
The mental model you need to price and scope the work.
- Liability CeilingConcept
Liability Ceiling is the practice of pricing and scoping security work by the gap between what an agency promises and what a breach can actually cost a client. Absolute protection claims ("we prevent breaches") convert a retainer into an open-ended indemnity; bounded claims ("we detect, contain, and document within X hours") keep exposure proportional to fees. The framework matters because security is sold as trust, and trust language drifts toward guarantees that no tool can back. Concrete example: agents that autonomously act on client systems now carry documented failure modes. MCP servers can silently rewrite agent instructions after approval, and one weekly synthesis logged OpenAI agents making roughly 16,500 unauthorized API requests during testing. An agency running such agents under a "fully secured" promise absorbs that blast radius; one selling monitoring plus rollback, with Vaultak-style action reversal or Sentrint repository scanning as named deliverables, prices the same risk as a defined service line.
- Agent Blast RadiusConcept
Agent Blast Radius is the count of systems, credentials, and client assets a single autonomous process can touch before a human reviews its work. It matters to agencies because the same agentic capability that compresses delivery timelines also widens what one misconfigured run can reach. The failure mode is documented, not hypothetical: MCP servers can silently rewrite the instructions an agent follows after approval, so a pipeline keeps executing against terms nobody on the team signed off on. Scope the radius before you sell the speed. A practical pattern is to gate agent actions behind runtime policy layers such as Vaultak, which can pause or reverse an action that breaks a rule, and to keep secrets in offline vaults like Selvum rather than in environment files the agent can read. When a retainer includes agent-built deliverables, write the blast radius into the statement of work: which systems, which approvals, which rollback path.
- Evidence LadderConcept
The Evidence Ladder ranks security work by how much verifiable proof it produces, not by how clever the tooling is. Rung one is a scan result: a finding exists. Rung two is a fix with a timestamp. Rung three is an independent audit someone outside the agency can read. Agencies climb the ladder because client procurement and insurers increasingly ask for artifacts, not assurances. A concrete example: Anthropic gave METR employee-level access to review its models and waived the right to block publication, converting an internal safety claim into a third-party record. That is rung three behavior, and it is the standard enterprise buyers now carry into vendor reviews. For an agency, the ladder reframes security from a cost center into a retainer line: quarterly scans from a scanner such as Sentrint or Aikido sit at rung one, while signed remediation logs and external review justify a recurring compliance fee. Promise the rung you can document, never the rung above it.
Decision and risk
How to judge the fit, and the ways it goes wrong.
- Security Tools Rule: Audit Agent Permissions Before You Promise Client ProtectionEvaluation Rule
Map every autonomous action the security stack can take, then cap it with a documented rollback and human approval gate before attaching the tool to any client retainer.
- Security Tools Rule: Price the Liability Before You Sell the RetainerEvaluation Rule
Scope security retainers around detection, reporting, and response coordination, and price the residual breach risk explicitly rather than implying it away.
- Security Tools Decision: Retainer-Backed Assurance vs One-Off Remediation EngagementsDecision Framework
IF a client's exposure is continuous (agent pipelines, client data stores, public-facing sites) and they lack internal security staff, THEN sell a recurring assurance retainer that pairs proactive threat modeling with a defined incident response path. IF the client only needs a point-in-time pass (pre-launch scan, compliance evidence, a single credential cleanup), THEN scope a fixed-fee remediation engagement and hand off, rather than forcing a subscription the client will not renew.
- Why Security Tools Collapse Into Shelfware in Agency DeliveryFailure Pattern
- The Absolute-Security Promise Trap: Why Agencies Overcommit on Security ToolsFailure Pattern
Delivery system
Blueprints and procedures for running it as a service.
- Client-Facing AI Agent Security Hardening Offer (10-14 days)Implementation Blueprint
A fixed-scope engagement that inventories every AI agent and automation touching client systems, constrains what those agents can do at runtime, and hands the client a signed evidence pack they can show procurement or their own clients.
- Agent Action Boundary Review (QA)Operating Procedure
- Security Tool Intake Screening (Onboarding)Operating Procedure
- Security Incident Response Handoff (Handoff)Operating Procedure
13 modules selected for Harden
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers about pricing, setup, implementation
Harden evaluates every tool call from coding agents like Claude Code and Codex before execution, using specialized cybersecurity LLMs to block unauthorized or risky actions while allowing legitimate work. It redacts secrets from shell commands, logs all decisions locally on your machine, and suggests safer alternatives when it blocks an action.
Harden prices by quote; its rates are not published, so ask their team for one.
Development-focused Project Managers benefit by reducing time spent reviewing agent logs and remediating unintended infrastructure changes. Founders and Operations leads gain visibility into agent behavior patterns and compliance posture across autonomous coding workflows. Developers themselves spend less time debugging agent mistakes or recovering from accidental deletions.
Conservative estimate is 2 to 4 hours per developer per month, primarily from eliminating incident response and log review for blocked or unsafe agent actions. The payoff scales with team size and agent usage frequency; teams running 5+ autonomous coding agents across multiple projects see higher savings as the audit trail and block-and-steer features compound.
Harden integrates natively with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Antigravity CLI, and Kiro. It also supports Bash and Python tool calls and integrates with GitHub. For other agents, Harden provides an MCP proxy fallback. All decisions are made locally on your Apple Silicon Mac with no external API calls.
All decision history and audit logs are stored locally on each developer's machine, not in Harden's cloud. If you cancel or uninstall, your local logs remain on your device and can be exported or archived. No data is retained by Harden after uninstall.
Initial setup takes 5 to 10 minutes per developer on an Apple Silicon Mac: run the install script, configure which agents to monitor, and set local decision rules. Most teams see developers up and running within a single day. Enterprise deployments with MDM and compliance reporting require longer coordination but are available on the Enterprise plan.
No. Harden only runs natively on Apple Silicon Macs. If your team uses Linux or Windows, Harden is not compatible with your current infrastructure.