Red-team and safety evaluation

Safe in English is not safe in every language.

Native-speaker teams write and grade adversarial and jailbreak probes in the languages your model actually serves, so safety gaps that hide outside English do not reach your users. Consent-backed, audit-trailed, and delivered across 25+ languages with deep Indic coverage.

ENHIBNTAARTested in every language
Watch the intro

Meet Graveiens AI

A quick look at how Graveiens AI partners with teams to deliver human data for AI models.

Watch the full Graveiens AI intro →

What it is

The safety you measured in English can quietly break in Hindi

AI red teaming is adversarial stress testing for AI systems: trained people attack the model with prompts designed to bypass its safeguards, then record where it fails. It is not general capability evaluation, and it is not a compliance certificate. Graveiens AI supplies the adversarial data and the harm ratings that feed your evaluation and alignment pipeline.

Most red teaming is done in English, yet a model that refuses a harmful request in English will often comply once it is rephrased in Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, or Arabic. Machine-translating an English probe set does not catch this, because it misses the idioms, transliteration, and code-switching that real users and real attackers use. Only native speakers writing original probes surface it.

See how expert evaluation fits the training stack
1Scope2Pilot3Produce4QA5Approve
How it maps to Graveiens AI

Native-speaker red-team and harm-evaluation sets, built to your policy

Native-speaker probes, not machine translation

Original adversarial and jailbreak prompts authored in each target language, covering the jailbreak, prompt-injection, unsafe-instruction and harmful-content categories you define.

Trained reviewers for grading

Responses graded against your safety taxonomy with severity levels and written rationale, so the labels are usable for both evaluation and alignment training.

Consent-backed and audit-trailed

Explicit-consent onboarding, metadata tagging and an audit trail on every program, backed by our four-stage QA workflow and ISO 9001:2017 quality management.

The Multilingual Red-Team Coverage Grid

Five dimensions, so coverage is explicit and defensible

A single "we tested it" claim hides more than it reveals. We scope every engagement across five dimensions and deliver the result as a coverage map.

Language tier

High-resource, mid-resource and low-resource languages are tested separately, because safety degrades as resource level drops.

Attack class

Direct jailbreaks, prompt injection, roleplay and hypothetical framings, payload smuggling, and code-switching.

Turn depth

Single-turn probes and multi-turn conversations, since models grow more vulnerable over a longer exchange.

Harm category

The taxonomy you define, graded consistently across every language.

Grading rubric

Severity and rationale applied by native-speaker reviewers, so a fail in Tamil means the same as a fail in English.

Who it is for

Built for the teams accountable for safety

AI lab safety teams

Safety and red-team teams shipping into non-English markets who need coverage beyond English evaluations.

Third-party evaluators

Independent evaluators and AI Safety Institutes commissioning multilingual red-team datasets.

Enterprises deploying models

Teams launching in India, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and other multilingual markets.

How it works

From your safety policy to a graded, per-language report

Scope and taxonomy

We align on target languages, attack classes, harm categories and your grading rubric before any probe is written.

Native-speaker probe design

Vetted native speakers author original adversarial and jailbreak prompts in each language.

Collect and grade responses

Your model answers the probes, single-turn and multi-turn; native-speaker reviewers grade every response with severity and rationale.

QA, report and deliver

Every label passes the four-stage review; you receive the labeled dataset plus a per-language coverage and findings report.

How the approaches compare

Automated scanners, English-only, and multilingual human red teaming

Automated scanners

Best for fast, repeatable regression checks. Cheap and high volume, but English-centric and blind to cultural and code-switching attacks. Use them alongside human red teaming, not instead of it.

English-only human red teaming

Best for products that truly ship in English only. Real human creativity and severity judgement, but blind to non-English failure modes.

Multilingual native-speaker (Graveiens AI)

Best for models shipping in multiple languages. Catches the safe-in-English-broken-elsewhere gap, and the labeled data is usable for alignment.

Common mistakes

What to avoid when red teaming for multilingual safety

  • Treating machine-translated English probes as multilingual coverage.
  • Testing only single-turn prompts, when vulnerability tends to rise over a multi-turn conversation.
  • Confusing red teaming with certification: red teaming produces evidence, it does not make a model safe on its own.
  • Ignoring low-resource languages, where safety training is thinnest and jailbreaks succeed most.
  • Capturing labels without rationale, which makes them hard to reuse for alignment.
FAQ

Questions, answered

What is AI red teaming?
AI red teaming is structured adversarial testing of an AI model. Trained people attack the model with prompts designed to bypass its safeguards, then record where it fails, so weaknesses are found before real users or attackers do. Graveiens AI supplies the human red teamers and graders and produces labeled adversarial data that feeds your own evaluation and alignment work.
How is red teaming different from AI evaluation?
Evaluation measures how well a model performs a task, such as accuracy and helpfulness. Red teaming measures how it fails under attack, such as jailbreaks and unsafe instructions. Our red-team service focuses on adversarial safety, while capability grading sits in our domain-expert evaluation service. Many teams run both together.
Why do language models fail in non-English languages?
Safety training data is concentrated in English, so guardrails are thinner in lower-resource languages. Native-speaker probes surface these gaps because they use the idioms and code-switching that machine translation misses. Independent research has repeatedly shown safety holding in English while slipping in other languages.
Do you decide whether our model passes?
No. We grade your model responses against the rubric you approve and hand you the labeled evidence and a per-language findings report. The decision about whether the model is ready to ship, and any claim about its safety, stays entirely with your team.
Which languages can you cover?
More than 25, with deep Indic coverage including Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Gujarati and Punjabi, plus major Asian and European languages. We scope the exact set to the markets your model serves.
What frameworks do you align to?
We map findings to the frameworks buyers already use: the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications at the application layer, MITRE ATLAS for adversary techniques, and the NIST AI RMF for governance, so our evidence folds into your existing risk process.
Is the adversarial data consent-backed?
Yes. Every contributor is onboarded with explicit consent, and each program carries metadata tagging and an audit trail, so the datasets you receive have a clean provenance record your compliance and legal teams can review.
How do we start and what does it cost?
Start with a scoped pilot in one or two languages, invoiced only for approved deliverables. Cost depends on languages, attack classes, turn depth and volume, so we quote precisely after scoping rather than giving a blind number.

Find out where your model safety breaks

Tell us the languages your model ships in and the harms you care about, and we will scope a red-team pilot you can judge on your own model.

Book a pilot

Related services