gate-oc-audit vs Legibility Field Kit

gate-oc-audit and Legibility Field Kit 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.

gate-oc-audit

Gate operates as a drop-in proxy: your agent points at one endpoint, Gate inspects every outbound prompt and every inbound response, then enforces the policy you write — blocking injections, redacting secrets and PII, flagging ambiguous cases, and writing every decision to a tamper-evident audit log anchored to a blockchain. The vendor reports 97.4% F1 across 16 public prompt-injection benchmarks and a head-to-head F1 of 96.6% versus Lakera Guard's 83.7% on four matched datasets; methodology and per-benchmark scores are published. Token compression and prefix caching run on every request, and the vendor states users see 20% or more token savings without changing model outputs. Gate is in private beta with no self-hosted deployment option, so teams with hard data-residency requirements hit a wall immediately.

Legibility Field Kit

The kit is a zero-dependency Python CLI that runs three checks against your AI decision records: does every change name a specific human owner, is time-to-reverse recorded for reversible actions, and does each entry carry a complete OTW receipt — Owner, Time, Witness. Run `audit` against a directory of governance files and it surfaces every defect in seconds. The scoring command turns those findings into a maturity grade across the three tests, giving compliance teams a number to track sprint over sprint. The wall appears fast: the kit reads files, flags gaps, and stops — it does not integrate with your ticketing system, your CI pipeline, or your approval workflow.

Attribute	gate-oc-audit	Legibility Field Kit
Pricing	Paid	Paid
Free trial	No	No
Open source	Yes	Yes
Has API	Yes	No
Self-hosted option	No	Yes
Platforms	Web proxy, desktop app	Python
Pros	Proxy-based architecture means your agent changes one endpoint, not its entire codebase, so you get injection defense without a rewrite and without touching model provider credentials. Bidirectional inspection catches both inbound injections from tool responses and outbound PII or credential leaks in model replies, which means a single misconfigured response cannot silently send a customer's SSN or an AWS key to the wrong place. Vendor-published benchmark methodology with per-dataset scores lets you audit the 97.4% F1 claim yourself rather than taking marketing copy on faith — which matters when you are deciding whether to put this in front of production traffic. Inline token compression and cache-prefix marking run automatically, so teams switching from direct API calls to Gate can offset the added infrastructure cost against token savings the vendor states average 20% or more per request. Policy-driven rule enforcement writes every block, redact, and flag decision to a tamper-evident audit log, so compliance reviews have a verifiable record of what the agent was told and what it said — without manual logging code in your agent.	Zero external dependencies, so the tool runs in an air-gapped or locked-down environment without a dependency audit of its own — which means regulated teams do not have to clear a supply-chain review just to use the auditor. The `init` command scaffolds governance files before a system goes live, so teams start with compliant structure rather than retrofitting it after a finding. OTW receipt detection — Owner, Time, Witness — catches the specific pattern where 'the team' or 'engineering' appears in the owner field, which is the defect that makes approval records legally meaningless under most accountability frameworks. Apache-2.0 license with self-hosted option, so your governance records and their audit results never leave your own infrastructure — critical when the files themselves contain sensitive decision rationale. Maturity scoring across three discrete tests gives compliance leads a metric that moves, so governance improvement has a number attached rather than being a qualitative assertion.
Cons	No self-hosted deployment option exists on the current vendor page. Teams in healthcare, finance, or government with data-residency or network-isolation requirements cannot use Gate at all — they move to on-premise alternatives or build detection in-house. The 1% false-positive rate reported in the benchmark means Gate will block or flag legitimate requests. At low request volumes this is a minor inconvenience; in high-throughput pipelines where a blocked call means a failed agent task, teams need a human-review queue or a fallback path — neither of which is described in the current docs, adding implementation overhead. Private beta access is invite-only with no stated general availability timeline on the vendor page, so teams cannot schedule Gate into a production roadmap with confidence. Projects that need a committed SLA or guaranteed capacity move to established providers like Lakera Guard despite the lower reported benchmark scores.	The kit audits files that already exist — if your team's governance process lives in Jira tickets, Confluence pages, or Slack threads rather than structured files in a directory, there is nothing for the tool to read, and the first project becomes manually exporting records into a format the CLI can parse. There is no CI integration, webhook, or pre-commit hook provided out of the box, so the audit runs when someone remembers to run it; teams that need enforcement at the moment a decision is logged — not after the fact — add their own pipeline glue, at which point they are maintaining that integration themselves. The repository shows two stars and a single commit at time of listing, which means community-tested edge cases, maintained issue trackers, and peer-vetted documentation are absent; teams with complex governance schemas that do not match the demo structure have no community forum to consult and will be reading source code to understand behavior, which pushes some teams toward building a custom linter in-house instead.

Bottom line

Only gate-oc-audit exposes a public API. Choose based on which difference matters most for your workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between gate-oc-audit and Legibility Field Kit?

gate-oc-audit is Paid and open source, while Legibility Field Kit is Paid and open source. Compare pricing, free trial, API, platforms, and pros/cons in the table above on AIDiveForge.

Is gate-oc-audit better than Legibility Field Kit?

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.