Emilia Protocol vs SigmaShake

Emilia Protocol and SigmaShake are both guardrails & safety tracked by AIDiveForge. Below is a side-by-side comparison of pricing, capabilities, platforms, and ownership — sourced from each tool's live website and verified before publishing.

Emilia Protocol

EMILIA sits as a control layer between an agent's decision and the system of record, blocking any irreversible write until a named human has signed off on the exact action hash from their own device. The protocol's core guarantees — no replay, no self-approval, no bypassing the gate — are machine-checked as TLA+ invariants and Alloy facts on every commit, not asserted in a policy document. Every approved or rejected action produces a Merkle-anchored evidence receipt retrievable at a standard API endpoint, so your auditor gets a signed artifact, not a log you assembled after the fact. The control layer is passive: it does not plan or execute anything itself, which means there is no agentic surface area to compromise.

SigmaShake

SigmaShake intercepts tool calls from agents running in Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code Copilot, and Gemini CLI, evaluating each action against a rule set before it executes. The vendor states decisions resolve in roughly 85 ms using deterministic native evaluation — no model inference, no GPU, no token spend. Rules follow an Allow/Ask/Deny pattern, where Ask routes the action to a human approval queue rather than blunting everything with a hard block. The desktop app installs in about 30 seconds with no admin rights; the CLI drops into any shell or CI hook chain. Self-hosting is supported, which means the guardrail layer stays offline and never sends your code or commands to a third-party model.

Attribute	Emilia Protocol	SigmaShake
Pricing	Paid	Paid
Price	—	$5/mo
Free trial	No	No
Open source	No	No
Has API	Yes	No
Self-hosted option	No	Yes
Platforms	—	Windows 10+, macOS 14+, Linux (Ubuntu 22.04+ / Fedora 38+ / Pop!_OS)
Pros	Machine-checked formal proofs on every commit, so compliance teams can point auditors to published TLA+ invariants rather than internal policy documents that prove nothing under scrutiny. Signoff is cryptographically bound to the exact action hash, which means an agent or compromised session cannot reuse an approval for a different transaction — the replay and substitution attacks that make business email compromise so effective are closed at the protocol level. Merkle-anchored, publicly verifiable evidence receipts at a stable API endpoint, so your SOX audit trail is a signed artifact the auditor retrieves independently rather than a log your team assembles after an incident. Three independent verifier implementations — JS, Python, and Go — proven to agree, so receipt verification does not create a single point of failure or lock you into one runtime. Apache 2.0 open specification, which means a legal and security team can read exactly what they are deploying before any commercial agreement, reducing the procurement risk that opaque governance tools carry.	Deterministic local evaluation at roughly 85 ms per check, so you avoid the latency and per-token cost of routing every agent action through a model-based policy guard. Ask mode holds a risky action in a human approval queue rather than blocking it outright, which means your agent keeps moving on safe tasks while you review the one call that needs a second look. PreToolUse hook integration for Claude Code and MCP server integration for Cursor, Codex, and VS Code Copilot, so the guardrail wires into agents your team is already running without a custom shim. Self-hosted deployment with no model inference, so your code, file paths, and shell commands never leave the machine — critical for teams with data-handling obligations. Per-user install with no admin or UAC rights required, which means individual developers can adopt it without waiting for IT to sign off on an organization-wide rollout.
Cons	Every irreversible action blocks until a named human approves it on their own device — there is no async or batch approval path described in the vendor docs. Teams running high-volume automated pipelines where human latency breaks throughput SLAs cannot use EMILIA as a gate without redesigning their pipeline around human review cycles, and most choose a different architecture rather than slow the pipeline. No self-hosted deployment option is documented, which means teams in air-gapped environments, strict data-residency jurisdictions, or FedRAMP-scoped infrastructure cannot route sensitive action context through an external control layer — those teams typically fall back to building internal approval workflows on their existing identity and audit stack. The formal verification scope is the authorization state machine only; the vendor states explicitly it does not prove anything about the AI model's behavior. Teams that conflate 'the protocol is safe' with 'the agent's decisions are safe' will find EMILIA prevents unauthorized execution but does nothing to catch an agent that requests plausible-but-wrong actions that a human approver rubber-stamps under time pressure.	No API is exposed, so teams building custom agent runtimes or embedding safety checks inside their own orchestration code cannot call SigmaShake programmatically — they wrap the CLI binary, which introduces a process boundary and complicates error handling at scale. The SHAKEDOWN benchmark that positions SigmaShake as the top-ranked guardrail was authored by SigmaShake, and competitor scores were modeled from public docs rather than measured runs; teams doing their own evaluation should run independent tests before treating the benchmark as a neutral comparison. Fleet management and team-level policy enforcement are paid-only features, which means a free-tier team cannot centrally audit what rules individual developers are running — a gap that matters the moment more than one engineer is using an AI coding agent on shared infrastructure. Windows support is the primary release target based on page emphasis and download prominence; macOS and Linux builds are listed but community reports on edge cases outside Windows are sparse, so teams running heterogeneous developer environments should validate on non-Windows machines before committing.

Bottom line

Only Emilia Protocol exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Emilia Protocol and SigmaShake?

Emilia Protocol is Paid, while SigmaShake is Paid. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is Emilia Protocol better than SigmaShake?

It depends on your workflow. Use the side-by-side attributes (pricing, open source, API, self-hosted, platforms) to decide. AIDiveForge does not rank a universal winner — we publish verified facts so you can choose.