discoverycomplexemerging

Capability Attestation Pattern

Verifying agent capabilities with proofs rather than trusting self-reported claims

Overview

The Challenge

Agents self-report their capabilities, but there is no verification. Malicious or poorly-built agents may claim capabilities they do not have, leading to task failures or security issues.

The Solution

Implement capability attestation where agents must prove their capabilities through benchmarks, certifications, or cryptographic proofs. Verifiers validate claims before trusting agents.

When to Use
  • Multi-party agent ecosystems (untrusted agents)
  • High-stakes task delegation
  • Agent marketplaces with quality requirements
  • Compliance-driven environments
When NOT to Use
  • Fully trusted, internal agent pools
  • Rapid prototyping (overhead not justified)
  • When self-reported capabilities are sufficient

Trade-offs

Advantages
  • +Verified, trustworthy capabilities
  • +Prevents capability fraud
  • +Enables trust in unknown agents
  • +Supports compliance requirements
Considerations
  • Attestation overhead
  • Requires benchmark infrastructure
  • Capabilities may change over time
  • Complex to implement correctly
Implement this pattern with our SDK
Get RepKit

Deep Dive

Capability Attestation adds a verification layer to agent discovery. Instead of trusting self-reported capabilities, agents must prove their abilities through objective measures.

Attestation Methods

Benchmark-Based

Agent runs standardized tests; results form the attestation.

  • Pros: Objective, reproducible
  • Cons: Benchmarks may not reflect real-world performance

Certification Authority

Trusted third party evaluates and certifies agents.

  • Pros: Independent verification
  • Cons: Centralized trust, cost

Cryptographic Proofs

Zero-knowledge proofs of capability (emerging research).

  • Pros: Privacy-preserving, tamper-proof
  • Cons: Complex, limited applicability

Reputation-Based

Track record from past performance attests to capability.

  • Pros: Real-world evidence
  • Cons: Cold start problem for new agents

Attestation Lifecycle

1. Claim

Agent declares capabilities it wants attested.

2. Challenge

Verifier presents tasks/benchmarks to prove capability.

3. Proof

Agent completes challenges; results recorded.

4. Certificate

Attestation certificate issued with expiry and scope.

5. Verification

Other agents verify certificate before trusting.

Certificate Contents

{
  "agent_id": "agent-123",
  "capability": "code_review",
  "benchmark": "code_review_bench_v2",
  "score": 0.92,
  "attester": "TrustedEvalOrg",
  "issued_at": "2025-01-15T00:00:00Z",
  "expires_at": "2025-07-15T00:00:00Z",
  "signature": "..."
}

Challenges

Capability Drift

Agent performance may degrade after attestation. → Solution: Short expiry, continuous re-attestation

Gaming Benchmarks

Agents optimized for benchmarks, not real tasks. → Solution: Diverse, evolving benchmark suites

Partial Capabilities

Agent good at some aspects, poor at others. → Solution: Fine-grained capability attestation

Example Scenarios

Agent Marketplace Certification

An agent marketplace requires all translation agents to pass standardized translation benchmarks (BLEU score > 0.8) before listing. Attestation certificates are issued and verified at discovery time.

OutcomeMarketplace quality improved, customer complaints about poor translations dropped 70%
Want to learn more patterns?
Explore Learning Paths
Considerations

Attestation is only as good as the benchmarks. Invest in comprehensive, realistic evaluation suites that resist gaming.

Dimension Scores
Safety
5/5
Accuracy
5/5
Cost
2/5
Speed
2/5
Implementation
Complexitycomplex
Implementation Checklist
Benchmark suite
Attestation service
Verification protocol
0/3 complete
Tags
discoveryattestationverificationtrustcertificationbenchmarks

Was this pattern helpful?