Explore/framework/NiyamAI - An Intent-Bound AI Agent with Cryptographically Verifiable Guardrails using Zero-Knowledge Proofs
N

Aditya Katkar, Om Karkele, Kartik Mandhane, Manisha More, Yash Kashid/NiyamAI - An Intent-Bound AI Agent with Cryptographically Verifiable Guardrails using Zero-Knowledge ProofsUnknown

Giving an AI agent the ability to send emails, query databases, or execute commands is useful--until the agent is tricked into doing something it shouldn't. Prompt injection, hallucinated reasoning, and unsafe tool calls form the primary attack surface for autonomous LLM agents. Existing defenses rely on software checks like system prompts or policy filters running on the same machine the attacker targets, offering no verifiable proof of execution. We introduce Niyam-AI, a framework that makes safety enforcement provable. At session start, permitted tools and constraints are locked into an Intent Contract committed via SHA-256. Every tool call is intercepted and validated by an isolated Judge model; upon passing, a zk-SNARK proof is generated via EZKL. The tool executes only after proof verification, allowing third parties to confirm enforcement without accessing Judge model weights. Evaluating Niyam-AI on 2,000 real-world scenarios from Agent-SafetyBench against NeMo Guardrails, Meta's Llama Prompt Guard 2, and OpenAI's GPT-OSS-Safeguard using 5-fold stratified cross-validation yields an F1 score of 88.5% with a 1.1% false-positive rate (bootstrap 95% CI: [85.19%, 91.88%], N=1000). McNemar's exact paired test confirms significant improvement: Niyam-AI wins 390 discordant scenarios against NeMo (vs 20 losses), 115 against Prompt Guard 2 (vs 13), and 384 against GPT-OSS-Safeguard (vs 19) with p < 0.0001 in all cases. Proof generation adds 2260.6 +/- 218.4 ms per approved action, while verification takes 53.1 +/- 11.8 ms. Niyam-AI provides a guardrail that is both highly accurate and mathematically verifiable--though this reflects a classifier adapted to Agent-SafetyBench evaluated against zero-shot baselines, a distinction discussed in Section IV.C.

framework
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 1mo ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed1mo ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 59 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
Repository activity · 59 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at
inactivepushed
2026-08-112026-10-10
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Multi-agent orchestration
  • Production agentic workflows
  • Stateful long-running tasks

◎ Strengths

  • Stable API
  • Active release cadence
  • Strong GitHub community

✕ Not ideal for

  • Simple single-step automation
  • Teams without Python/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Breaking changes between minor versions
  • Ecosystem lock-in if tightly coupled
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

O
OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings
0 · framework
55
C
CHAL: Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language
0 · framework
55
T
Think Twice, Act Once: Verifier-Guided Action Selection For Embodied Agents
0 · framework
55
S
Structuring agentic AI for HPC code modernization
0 · framework
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler1mo ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing