Public leaderboard

Public assessment

KuvopLLC/purroxy2 (purroxy)

purroxy · v0.1.0 · scanned

What changed in the harness

Selection accuracy 100%, destructive-action safety rate 0% (baseline only -- no rewrite pass applied).

Category breakdown

Where the score comes from.

Earned points across the four signals Gradable measures. Safety and Legibility are scored out of 30; Economics and Discoverability are scored out of 20.

01Safety

0.0 / 30

0.0 out of 30
02Legibility

29.6 / 30

29.6 out of 30
03Economics

20.0 / 20

20.0 out of 20
04Discoverability

10.0 / 20

10.0 out of 20

Highest-impact fix

Estimated gain +30 points

Add explicit identity and permission preflight tools

Expose machine-readable principal/tenant confirmation and a non-mutating permission check so agents can verify both before destructive actions.

Description evidence

Defects and rewrites.

0 defects found across the exposed tool descriptions. Suggested rewrites make purpose, inputs, boundaries, and returns easier for an agent to understand.

Tool Defect types Suggested rewrite
No description defects were flagged in this assessment.

Selection evidence

Confusable tool pairs.

2 pairs where similar names or overlapping descriptions may send an agent toward the wrong tool.

Tool A Tool B Confidence Why they collide
purroxy_list_capabilities purroxy_run_capability medium A task like 'use Purroxy to list my transactions/invoices' matches the word 'list' in list_capabilities, even though the correct tool is run_capability (which returns extracted data), not the metadata listing. Both share capability names/parameters in their descriptions, so a user phrasing a data-retrieval request as 'list X via Purroxy' could plausibly route to the wrong member.
purroxy_list_capabilities purroxy_status low Queries about availability/count, e.g. 'how many automations does Purroxy have?' or 'is Purroxy available?', are ambiguously served by status, which reports connection status and the number of available capabilities, versus list_capabilities, which returns the full details. Mostly distinct (status = connectivity, list = catalogue), but the shared 'capabilities available' framing creates a slight overlap.

Compare the field

One score is useful.
The evidence makes it actionable.

Back to the leaderboard