---
title: "Amp | Ethical Stack"
url: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/
catalog_version: f6baff2119d0e9158520da7fbe4232011dac79f25bd08757436d7a1dbd593db2
---

# Amp

Multi-model coding agent with CLI and cloud Orbs for long-running software tasks.

Canonical profile: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/

Scope: Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.

Published overall: 3.8; 5/6 dimensions rated.

Round the equal-weight mean of available numerical ratings to one decimal; require at least four of six for an overall score. BDS status stays outside the mean; for eligible profiles, a boycott target caps the final score at 2/10 and a pressure target subtracts one point (minimum 1). Not listed and not checked do not adjust the score.

## Energy practices

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#energy

Amp documents a cloud service and selectable models, but reports no energy or electricity for coding tasks.

Reason: 1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 1 controls = 3/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

Argument: The cloud deployment and model modes define routes but no footprint, electricity sourcing or measured resource use. Mode choices do not establish energy savings.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Per-task energy, emissions, water and facility-level clean power are not reported.

```json
{
  "method": "practices-transparency-v1",
  "scope": "Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.",
  "components": {
    "disclosure": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Amp documents its cloud service and provider boundary but no product energy report.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "electricity": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No clean electricity or facility mix is reported.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "demand": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "Selectable model modes vary reasoning but do not document energy savings.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs/models-and-subagents",
        "https://ampcode.com/modes"
      ]
    }
  },
  "actualImpactMeasured": false
}
```

- [Amp introduction and quickstart](https://ampcode.com/docs) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp security reference](https://ampcode.com/security) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp modes, models and routing](https://ampcode.com/docs/models-and-subagents) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp mode selection](https://ampcode.com/modes) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Training data

Finding: N/A

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#training-rights

Amp can route to different models and providers, so no single training corpus applies.

Reason: Select the exact model and provider before assessing training-data rights.

Argument: Amp documents multiple models and provider connections. A client-level rights grade would combine unrelated corpora; prompt privacy controls do not establish rights in model training data.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The selected model, version, provider, inherited base and post-training sources determine the rights assessment.

Applicability: Select the exact model and provider before assessing training-data rights.

```json
{
  "method": "training-rights-evidence-v1",
  "scope": "The stated training release or selected model",
  "components": null,
  "routeDependency": "Select the exact model and provider before assessing training-data rights.",
  "modelReference": null
}
```

- [Amp modes, models and routing](https://ampcode.com/docs/models-and-subagents) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp mode selection](https://ampcode.com/modes) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Your data & privacy

Finding: 5/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#privacy

Amp runs a local client, while prompts, selected code context, thread records and tool results pass through its cloud service.

Reason: Amp’s security reference says the Amp server stores thread data and sends requests to listed model providers. Minimal retention is available for eligible managed routes; linked personal subscriptions use separate provider controls. Amp does not offer self-hosting.

Argument: Amp’s security reference says the Amp server stores thread data and sends requests to listed model providers. Minimal retention is available for eligible managed routes; linked personal subscriptions use separate provider controls. Amp does not offer self-hosting.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Provider retention varies by route. Workspace admins can access private threads under audited controls, and BYOK still passes through Amp’s server.

- [Amp security reference](https://ampcode.com/security) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp introduction and quickstart](https://ampcode.com/docs) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Openness

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#openness

Amp offers a local CLI and apps connected to a hosted agent service; no self-hosted service is documented.

Reason: The product docs describe a local client and managed server. Model selection is provided through third-party providers, but the reviewed sources do not describe a self-hosted server or open service license.

Argument: The product docs describe a local client and managed server. Model selection is provided through third-party providers, but the reviewed sources do not describe a self-hosted server or open service license.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Amp CLI and cloud service, including hosted Orbs. Selected code context and thread data are processed through Amp and the chosen inference provider.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: The full current product license and permission to run the server independently are not established.

- [Amp introduction and quickstart](https://ampcode.com/docs) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp security reference](https://ampcode.com/security) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Worker protections

Finding: 1/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#labour

Amp has no workforce disclosures covering the AI supply chain in the reviewed public sources.

Reason: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1/10. Documented worker protections; missing disclosure is an evidence gap.

Argument: The reviewed public sources do not describe employee conditions, worker voice, or contractor protections for Amp. Missing disclosure is an evidence gap, not proof of mistreatment.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Amp employees and AI supply-chain workers

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Contractor conditions, data annotation and moderation, worker representation, remedies and independent review remain unknown.

```json
{
  "method": "worker-safeguards-evidence-v1",
  "entity": "amp",
  "company": "Amp",
  "scope": "Amp employees and AI supply-chain workers",
  "components": {
    "conditions": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No worker conditions policy or implementation evidence was found in reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "voice": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No worker voice, representation or grievance safeguard was found in reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "assurance": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No independent worker-level evidence was found in reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": true
}
```

- [Amp introduction and quickstart](https://ampcode.com/docs) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp security reference](https://ampcode.com/security) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Military ties

Finding: 7/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#military-contracts

No military relationship was established from the reviewed public sources for Amp; the score reflects uncertainty.

Reason: 7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.

Argument: The sources reviewed did not establish a military contract or operational defense offering for Amp. The method starts at 7 when a military relationship is not established; missing disclosure is not proof that none exists.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Amp; no relationship established in reviewed sources

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: This bounded review cannot rule out unreported customers, indirect use, subcontracting or future work.

```json
{
  "method": "military-ties-priority-v2",
  "entity": "amp",
  "company": "Amp",
  "scope": "Amp; no relationship established in reviewed sources",
  "components": {
    "restrictions": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No public military-use restriction was found in the reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "oversight": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No independently evidenced military-use oversight was found.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    },
    "transparency": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No military customer or relationship disclosure was identified.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://ampcode.com/docs",
        "https://ampcode.com/security"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": true,
  "relationship": "not-established",
  "relationshipReason": "No military relationship for Amp was established in the reviewed sources; this is not proof that none exists.",
  "score": 7,
  "baseScore": 7,
  "safeguardPoints": 0,
  "safeguardAdjustment": 0,
  "rawScore": 7,
  "cap": null
}
```

- [Amp introduction and quickstart](https://ampcode.com/docs) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [Amp security reference](https://ampcode.com/security) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## BDS targets

Finding: Not listed

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/amp/#israel-palestine

Amp was not named on the two BNC campaign pages checked. This limited list check is not an endorsement.

Reason: Campaign category, excluded from numerical scoring.

Argument: The BNC selects specific company targets; Amp was not named in the official priority guide or No Tech campaign when checked. This is not a nationality-based assessment or proof that the company has no other relevant relationships.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Named BNC campaign lists checked 2026-10-28

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: This covers only the BNC corporate guide and No Tech page. Other BDS campaigns, local calls, ownership changes, contractors and business relationships are outside the check.

- [BNC official boycott and pressure guide](https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

- [BNC official No Tech campaign](https://bdsmovement.net/no-tech-oppression-apartheid-or-genocide) (primary; checked 2026-10-28)

## Reading the evidence

- Assessments are provisional editorial judgments. Cite the profile and the underlying sources, and retain confidence, scope and unknowns.

- Unknown, not-applicable and model-dependent are different states. Missing evidence does not establish good or bad conduct.

- Company-level evidence does not establish use of a particular product or model. Account plan, model, host and route can change an assessment.

- Energy scores describe documented practices and transparency, not measured request emissions. Zero component points can mean an evidence gap.

- Published overall scores require at least four of six numerical dimensions. Preserve coverage and BDS adjustments; BDS itself is categorical.

- No named BDS target found is limited to the reviewed campaign sources and is not approval. Personalized priorities do not change the published overall score.

- Review and source-check dates describe the research, not this deployment. Fetch current primary sources when the decision requires current verification.

Methodology: https://ethicalstack.ai/methodology/