Loading...
Community presentation
THE RESEARCH: Central question: when an AI agent (or team of agents) doing cybersecurity work claims a task succeeded — "vulnerability patched," "intrusion contained" — is that …
Create your own version
Use this visual direction as inspiration for a new Presenton deck.
Use this designCreator prompt
THE RESEARCH: Central question: when an AI agent (or team of agents) doing cybersecurity work claims a task succeeded — "vulnerability patched," "intrusion contained" — is that claim actually true? We compare three architectures: (A) single agent, (B) specialized multi-agent team, (C) same team plus an independent verifier that re-checks the real environment state instead of trusting the agents' self-report. Key metrics: claimed success rate vs. VERIFIED success rate vs. false success rate; recovery rate after a verifier catches a false claim; and the extra computational cost verification adds (worst-case, not just average). Four hypotheses, stated so they can fail: specialization helps but not everywhere; verifiers catch false claims better than agents recover from them; verification cost is concentrated in bad cases, not spread evenly; a meaningful share of false claims come from agents fabricating data, not just reasoning badly. Known weaknesses I need help presenting honestly, not hiding: 1. This methodology is adapted from a paper on transactional (airline/retail) agents, not originated by me — I'm testing whether the pattern transfers to cybersecurity. 2. The core mechanism depends on an automated way to independently re-verify security state (e.g., re-test if an exploit still works), which is a real engineering challenge I haven't fully solved yet. 3. No experimental results exist yet — this is a design, not findings. WHAT I WANT: 1. Tell me honestly whether "don't trust the agent that graded its own homework" is a strong enough hook, or suggest something sharper. 2. A slide-by-slide outline for ~10 minutes (10-12 slides), each with: core message in one sentence, and whether it needs a diagram/table/text-only. 3. Where the architecture diagram and the verification flow (claim → independent recheck → pass/fail → correction loop) belong, simplified for a slide. 4. A 60-second opening example that makes "false success" concrete and memorable. 5. How to present limitation #1 and #2 above as intellectual honesty that builds credibility, not as weaknesses to bury — give me actual phrasing. 6. The 3 toughest questions I'll likely get and a direct, non-defensive answer for each. Follow Design: {"palette":["Slate White #F8FAFC — primary background","Deep Terminal Charcoal #0F172A — primary headers, structure, and text","Verifier Cyan #0284C7 — verified signals and independent validation states","Discrepancy Crimson #DC2626 — false claim warnings and unverified self-reports","Muted Boundary Gray #E2E8F0 — structural card borders and architectural divider grids","Agent Amber #D97706 — agent self-report claims and computational cost spikes"],"fonts":{"IBM Plex Sans":"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=IBM+Plex+Sans:ital,wght@0,100..700;1,100..700&display=swap","IBM Plex Mono":"https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=IBM+Plex+Mono:ital,wght@0,100;0,200;0,300;0,400;0,500;0,600;0,700;1,100;1,200;1,300;1,400;1,500;1,600;1,700&display=swap"},"type":"IBM Plex Sans in bold tabular titling for core research propositions; IBM Plex Mono in medium uppercase for architecture stage tags, verification states, metric deltas, and telemetry annotations.","layout":"Asymmetric split-screen grid pairing qualitative research assertions on the left with structured architecture flowcharts and claim-versus-verification telemetry tables on the right.","framework_treatment":"System schematic cards with crisp 1px borders, dashed audit loops showing independent verifier probes, severity callout pills for claim discrepancy rates, and tabular matrices contrasting single, multi-agent, and verifier architectures.","feels_like":"An MIT Lincoln Laboratory systems security briefing mixed with an IEEE S&P architectural research paper"}
Presentation overview
This community presentation was shared by Bhanu Chaitanya as a complete 12-slide example. THE RESEARCH: Central question: when an AI agent (or team of agents) doing cybersecurity work claims a task succeeded — "vulnerability patched," "intrusion contained" — is that … The preview lets you review the full sequence in order, rather than judging the design from a single cover image.
Use it as a reference for planning your own deck: notice how the amount of information changes from slide to slide, where visual emphasis appears, and how repeated design choices help the presentation feel connected. Community examples are inspiration, not locked templates, so you can keep the ideas that fit your audience and replace anything that does not.
Learn from the example
Look at the job each slide performs. Identify where the deck introduces its subject, develops the main points, adds evidence or examples, and moves toward a conclusion.
Notice which element attracts attention first and how headings, supporting text, images, and data are separated. Strong hierarchy makes the intended reading order obvious.
Compare spacing, typography, color, and repeated components across the slides. Consistent rules help varied content feel like one presentation instead of unrelated screens.
Make it your own
Begin with your audience and the decision, lesson, or action the presentation should support. Replace the topic, examples, evidence, and visuals with material you can verify, then edit every slide for one clear takeaway. You can borrow the visual direction without copying the creator's wording or message. Presenton will use this community deck as a design reference while you develop content for your own purpose.
