Why an agent's browser and its boundary belong in one place, what counts as evidence of what an agent actually did, and where h5i differs from Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, and Caido.
Burp Suite, ZAP, Caido, and h5i compared for AI pentesting: AI-assisted manual testing, AI-authored scan automation, and agent-led investigation.
Burp Suite vs h5i for AI agents: compare HTTP capture, request editing, browser automation, and fully automated penetration testing with Burp AT or h5i.
OWASP ZAP vs h5i for AI agents: compare DAST scanning and MCP automation with fully automated, agent-driven browser testing, HTTP capture, editing, and replay.
Caido vs h5i for AI agents: compare proxy history, HTTPQL, Replay, Automate, and Skills with fully automated agent-driven browser and HTTP testing.
Create one sandbox for an AI coding task, browse from inside it, develop and test there, then review the evidence before exporting or applying the patch.
AI coding agents run package scripts, compilers, tests, servers, and browsers. Sandboxing the whole workload limits what mistakes and untrusted code can reach.
Choose an AI coding-agent sandbox by the failure it must prevent: host file access, unrestricted network traffic, environment drift, or a shared kernel.
Review AI-generated code using the diff, externally observed test results, denied actions, browser errors, and explicit gaps in evidence.
Limit the files, credentials, network destinations, local services, and repository writes available to a prompt-injected coding agent.