This product was not featured by Product Hunt yet. It will not be visible on their landing page and won't be ranked (cannot win product of the day regardless of upvotes).
Product upvotes vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product comments vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product upvote speed vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product upvotes and comments
Waiting for data. Loading
Product vs the next 3
Loading
Vulnify
Stop Claude Code and Cursor agents before risky actions run
Vulnify decides each sensitive AI agent action before it runs: ALLOW, REVIEW or BLOCK, with a 0-100 score, the reasons and a hash-chained audit log. Node and Python SDKs, monitor mode, fail closed by default. The Developer plan is free.
Hi Product Hunt 👋 I'm Giovanni, and I build Vulnify.
If your Claude Code, Cursor or Grok agent can delete, export or send email, Vulnify decides each of those actions before it runs. Free plan, no card.
The problem: agents get a credential once and then act on their own. The credential says who is acting. It doesn't say whether this export, of this many records, to this destination, should run right now.
How it works: your code describes the action, and Vulnify returns ALLOW, REVIEW or BLOCK, with a 0-100 score and the reasons. REVIEW waits for a person, in the app or in Slack. BLOCK never starts. Every decision lands in a hash-chained audit log.
A few things I chose on purpose:
Fail closed by default: if Vulnify can't be reached, the action doesn't run unless you opt into fail open.
Monitor mode: see what would be blocked before anything is.
Metadata, not data: Vulnify sees the agent, action, destination and record count, never the records.
Policies as code: a CLI validates, dry-runs and tests YAML policies in CI.
It's early access. Not there yet: SSO, enforced org-wide MFA, a dedicated environment, certifications. The SDKs are MIT on GitHub.
One question for you: how do you decide today which agent actions need a human? And where would this model not fit your stack?
“Stop Claude Code and Cursor agents before risky actions run”
Vulnify was submitted on Product Hunt and earned 2 upvotes and 1 comments, placing #153 on the daily leaderboard. Vulnify decides each sensitive AI agent action before it runs: ALLOW, REVIEW or BLOCK, with a 0-100 score, the reasons and a hash-chained audit log. Node and Python SDKs, monitor mode, fail closed by default. The Developer plan is free.
On the analytics side, Vulnify competes within API, Developer Tools, GitHub and Security — topics that collectively have 664.8k followers on Product Hunt. The dashboard above tracks how Vulnify performed against the three products that launched closest to it on the same day.
Who hunted Vulnify?
Vulnify was hunted by Giovanni Zadinello. A “hunter” on Product Hunt is the community member who submits a product to the platform — uploading the images, the link, and tagging the makers behind it. Hunters typically write the first comment explaining why a product is worth attention, and their followers are notified the moment they post. Around 79% of featured launches on Product Hunt are self-hunted by their makers, but a well-known hunter still acts as a signal of quality to the rest of the community. See the full all-time top hunters leaderboard to discover who is shaping the Product Hunt ecosystem.
For a complete overview of Vulnify including community comment highlights and product details, visit the product overview.
Giovanni Zadinello
Hi Product Hunt 👋 I'm Giovanni, and I build Vulnify.
If your Claude Code, Cursor or Grok agent can delete, export or send email, Vulnify decides each of those actions before it runs. Free plan, no card.
The problem: agents get a credential once and then act on their own. The credential says who is acting. It doesn't say whether this export, of this many records, to this destination, should run right now.
How it works: your code describes the action, and Vulnify returns ALLOW, REVIEW or BLOCK, with a 0-100 score and the reasons. REVIEW waits for a person, in the app or in Slack. BLOCK never starts. Every decision lands in a hash-chained audit log.
A few things I chose on purpose:
Fail closed by default: if Vulnify can't be reached, the action doesn't run unless you opt into fail open.
Monitor mode: see what would be blocked before anything is.
Metadata, not data: Vulnify sees the agent, action, destination and record count, never the records.
Policies as code: a CLI validates, dry-runs and tests YAML policies in CI.
It's early access. Not there yet: SSO, enforced org-wide MFA, a dedicated environment, certifications. The SDKs are MIT on GitHub.
One question for you: how do you decide today which agent actions need a human? And where would this model not fit your stack?
Security contact: security@vulnify.io (https://www.vulnify.io/disclosure)