AI & Technical question

Before launching a new Codex capability that can write code or trigger deployments, what evaluation plan and launch gates would you require to validate permission boundaries, prompt-injection resistance, stale authorization handling, secret protection, partner-dependency failure modes, and audit completeness?

Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.

What this question tests

AI safety and technical judgment on launch-readiness gates for an agent with real code and deployment authority.

Group the evaluation plan by risk category named in the question: permission boundaries, prompt injection, stale authorization, secret protection, partner-dependency failures, and audit completeness.
For permission boundaries, require red-team testing that the agent cannot exceed its granted scope even under adversarial prompting, with a hard gate of zero boundary violations in the eval suite.
For prompt injection, test with adversarial content embedded in code comments, commit messages, and dependency files, since those are realistic injection vectors for a coding agent.
For stale authorization, require the agent to re-validate permissions immediately before executing a deployment action, not rely on a permission check cached from earlier in the session.
For secret protection and audit completeness, require automated secret-scanning before any commit or deploy action, and a complete, tamper-evident log of every action taken, gated on 100 percent action coverage before launch.

Organizes the plan directly around the six named risk categories rather than a generic security checklist, showing the answer is grounded in the actual question.
Proposes concrete, realistic attack vectors for a coding agent specifically, like injection through commit messages or dependency files, not just generic prompt injection.
Sets a hard launch gate, near-zero permission violations and full audit log coverage, rather than a soft best-effort standard for a capability with deployment authority.
Names re-validation of authorization immediately before action as the fix for stale-permission risk, a realistic failure mode in long-running agent sessions.

Proposing a generic security checklist that does not address the six specific risk categories named in the question.
Treating a permission check done once at session start as sufficient, ignoring stale authorization risk in longer sessions.

How would you test for partner-dependency failure modes specifically?
What would you do if the eval suite found a permission boundary violation right before a planned launch date?