Every tool here does the same thing. Take what a system or agent claims is true, and check it against something you can actually verify — something it can't just make up. If the claim and the check don't match, the tool flags it. We don't read the agent's mind and we don't police its wording; we check whether the story it tells matches something real. The subject changes — a software dependency, a reasoning trace, a handover manual, the electricity a chip draws — but the move never does.
One thing we say out loud that most of this field hides: not all checks are equal. A system that grades its own homework can look perfect and still be lying. So the tools sit on a ladder — the higher the rung, the harder the check is to fake, and the more a “pass” is actually worth.
Which check fits your job?
Auditing an agent's decision or reasoning logPriority Tracer →
Reviewing an AI plan, policy, or system promptGap Check →
Checking whether a framework's parts hold upFramework Audit →
Reviewing a handover or operations manualContinuity Audit →
Just want a word explainedAsk / glossary →
Or, if you're an AI agent (or telling one what to do): run these checks from a pipeline on your own output — see llms.txt.
The ladder — how much a check is worth
The document against itself Rung 1 · weakest
The check stays inside one text: does the part that names a risk also name something that handles it? These catch the everyday failure — a plan with holes — but they share one blind spot: a careful lie passes. A document that names controls it doesn't really have will still read clean. Cheap, useful, and honestly the weakest rung.
Gap Check · Framework Audit · Priority Tracer · Continuity Audit
One thing against a separate thing Rung 2 · stronger
The check is a second item, made at a different time. Today's server contract against a fingerprint you approved last week. The day you planned against the day you closed — locked in a chain so neither can be quietly edited after the fact. Now a lie has to fake both, which is much harder — and if someone tampers, the chain breaks right at the spot they touched.
day-ledger · mcp-manifest-pin
Against the physical world Rung 3 · the frontier
The check comes from outside the software entirely: the power a chip actually drew, or a hardware seal proving what actually ran. This is the rung a lying agent can't beat by writing a tidier log — as long as the check sits on something the agent can't reach. We've tested the power end and we'll be straight about it: it reliably catches “is it working, or just claiming to be,” but a single sensor is only as trustworthy as the wire it sits on. The real top of this rung is a check rooted in trusted hardware. We're building toward it — it isn't done, and we won't pretend it is.
Physical footprint experimental
Where each tool stands
| Tool | Rung | What it claims | What it's checked against |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gap Check | itself | the risks a document names | whether that same document names a fix for each |
| Framework Audit | itself | a stated goal | whether the document's own parts have real substance |
| Priority Tracer | itself | the priority a trace says it holds | the order that same trace actually follows |
| Continuity Audit | itself | what a handover manual promises | whether the same manual holds the backups it needs |
| day-ledger | separate | the day you planned | the locked, signed day you closed |
| mcp-manifest-pin | separate | the tool contract a server serves today | the fingerprint you approved earlier |
| Physical footprint exp | physical | a log claiming the machine is idle | the real power the chip drew |
The rule underneath all of it. We don't check for good; we check for true. “Safe” is a judgment no meter can read. “This machine ran exactly what it said it ran” is something you can hold up and check. We only measure the second kind — and for every tool, we tell you how strong that check really is. That last part is the honest half most of the field leaves out. One more thing, plainly: a check is only as good as how independent it is. Three numbers from the same tool aren't three checks — they're one check wearing three hats. A real second check comes from a different place that could fail a different way.
This page's own little ledger (it practices what it preaches):
| Date | Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-05 | v1: the “one engine, many checks” explainer — the ladder, the tool map, the underlying rule. | To give the whole toolset one plain-English thesis a first-time reader gets on sight, without jargon. |
| (next) | (update whenever a tool moves rungs or a new check is added) |