ARCVERIN
Slide 1 of 5
The readiness question

An API can be valid and still be unsafe to automate.

OpenAPI validation tells you whether a contract follows a standard. It does not tell you whether an autonomous system has enough trustworthy evidence to choose, execute, verify, recover from, and govern each operation.

The business risk: teams expose operations to agents before authority, side effects, recovery, and verification are understood.

The governance gap: “we have an OpenAPI file” is mistaken for “this API is ready for autonomous use.”

Same contract · different question

LINTER

“Is POST /payments described correctly?”

ARCVERIN QUALIFICATION

“What evidence justifies allowing an agent to call it?”

Syntax is necessary. Readiness is a higher-order decision.

The product

An evidence compiler for API readiness.

ARCVERIN reconstructs the operational meaning inside OpenAPI—operations, schemas, references, security, errors, callbacks, links, dependencies, and workflow clues—then applies deterministic qualification rules.

The output is not a prettier lint report. It is a defensible model of what is ready, what remains uncertain, and what must stay restricted.

01

Reconstruct

Turn the contract into operation and dependency evidence.

02

Qualify

Evaluate semantics, authority, effects, retry, recovery, and verification.

03

Restrict

Keep under-evidenced operations unavailable to autonomous clients.

04

Remediate

Name the owner, artifact, evidence, and closure test for every gap.

The trust boundary

Static evidence without static overreach.

ARCVERIN uses the OpenAPI contract deeply while staying honest about what a contract cannot prove.

What the contract can establish

  • ✓ Declared operations and bounded input/output shapes
  • ✓ Authentication schemes and documented constraints
  • ✓ Error, callback, link, reference, and workflow relationships
  • ✓ Candidate verification, retry, and recovery paths

What requires more evidence

  • — Actual approval or authorization enforcement
  • — Runtime retry and idempotency behavior
  • — Audit retrieval and reconciliation effectiveness
  • — Sandbox parity and live side-effect boundaries

Proposed and inferred content receives no authoritative readiness credit.

Comparable by design

Hold the evaluator constant. Lock the evidence surface.

Every comparison uses the same qualification release, rule set, and evidence boundary against specific, locked OpenAPI surfaces.

FIXED EVALUATOR

The qualification basis stays unchanged across compared surfaces.

LOCKED INPUT

Each outcome belongs to one exact OpenAPI surface and its declared evidence.

EXPLAINABLE DIFFERENCE

Rule outcomes show how contract evidence differs under the same evaluator.

Not a provider ranking. No customer history, provider reputation, hosted backend, or runtime-proof claim enters the comparison.

The customer outcome

Move from API inventory to automation decisions.

Start with one OpenAPI specification. Finish with a shared, evidence-bound answer for API, platform, security, and AI teams.

✓ Readiness outcomes for each operation and rule

✓ Clear autonomous and MCP exposure restrictions

✓ Causal remediation with responsible owners

✓ Evidence lineage and reassessment criteria

INITIAL RELEASE

API Qualification for autonomous and agentic readiness

Focused exclusively on turning OpenAPI evidence into practical readiness decisions, with a clear boundary between declared contract facts and runtime proof.

Prepare for Qualification