Hacktoberfest 2026: die Issues, die Maintainer für den Oktober markiert haben – offen und einsteigerfreundlich. Hacktoberfest-Issues durchsuchen

Make the policy decision point pluggable (the rules are injectable, the evaluator is not)

Offen
  • Stimmt etwas nicht?
#350 1 Kommentar 0 Reaktionen 0 zugewiesene Personen Auf GitHub ansehen

Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag

Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.

Bewertung

Schwierigkeit
5/5
Geschätzter Aufwand
Über eine Woche
Anfängerfreundlichkeit
35/100
Issue-Typ
Feature
Klarheit
Größtenteils klar
Aktivitätsstatus
Aktiv
Tech-Stack
typescript
Bereich
authorization, security

Rechercherichtung

Beginne mit server/src/computer/gateway.ts ungefähr bei den Zeilen 469-535 sowie mit server/src/computer/policy.ts ungefähr bei den Zeilen 4-12, 38-42, 44-153 und 210-243. Bestätige, ob das Enterprise-Gateway bereits einen steckbaren Entscheidungspunkt besitzt, und definiere und dokumentiere anschließend den decider-Vertrag unter Beibehaltung der Snapshot-Auflösung, der dry-run-Verarbeitung, der Audit-Reihenfolge und des fail-closed-Verhaltens; abgeschlossen ist die Aufgabe, wenn der Standardpfad und ein ausgearbeitetes Beispiel für einen decider enthalten sind.

Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.

Beschreibung

What I see today

The policy data is already fully injectable. options.policy() is a getter
(server/src/computer/gateway.ts:523), backed by createPolicyStore with
ACTION_POLICY_TOPIC for live reload (server/src/computer/policy-store.ts).

The evaluator is not. evaluateActionPolicy is a direct import from ./policy,
called synchronously:

const decision = evaluateActionPolicy(options.policy(), context);

So a deployment can change the rules, but not who answers.

Why that's worth a seam

Three cases the current shape can't serve:

  1. A deployment that already owns a policy engine. OPA/Rego, Cedar, an internal
    service. Today they have to transcribe their rules into CEL and keep two sources in
    sync, which is exactly the setup where the two drift and nobody notices.

  2. Decisions that need state the gateway doesn't hold. "This bot has already
    submitted three orders today." "This action is above the amount this actor may
    approve alone." "A human granted this, twenty minutes ago, and the grant expires."
    CEL over a stateless PolicyContext can't express any of those — not a flaw in the
    expression language, just a different question.

  3. Decisions that take time. Anything involving a human in the loop is async by
    nature, and the current call site is synchronous.

The good news is that most of the work is already done: PolicyContext
(server/src/computer/policy.ts:44-153) is a clean, serialisable, effect-level
object — intent, mcp.effect, file.extension, command, resolved element. That
is a better PDP boundary than most systems that set out to build one.

Concrete shape

export type PolicyDecider = (
  context: PolicyContext,
) => PolicyDecision | Promise<PolicyDecision>;

Default stays exactly what happens now:

const decide: PolicyDecider = options.decide
  ?? ((ctx) => evaluateActionPolicy(options.policy(), ctx));
// ...
const decision = await decide(context);

Line 523 is already inside an async method that awaits write(...) on the next
line, so the await costs nothing structurally.

Two things I'd want written into the contract, not left to the implementer:

  • A decider that throws, or exceeds its timeout, is a refusal. Same discipline as
    matches() and its onError argument (policy.ts:210-243). A remote PDP that is
    merely unreachable must not be a way to get an action through, and the timeout should
    be required rather than optional.
  • dry-run stays in the gateway, not in the decider. Otherwise an external decider
    can silently disable enforcement for the whole deployment, which is the one thing this
    seam must not make possible.

What I would not touch

  • Snapshot resolution stays server-side (gateway.ts:469-471). A decider receives the
    element the server resolved, never what the caller claimed. The comment at
    policy.ts:38-42 is the reason the whole thing works and an external decider must not
    get a chance to weaken it.
  • The gateway still writes the audit row before forwarding (gateway.ts:524-535),
    whoever decided. The trail records the decision, not the decider's opinion of it.

One question before any of this

policy.ts:4-12 says this mirrors the policy engine in CopilotKit's enterprise agent
gateway, deliberately, so a rule means the same thing in both. Does that engine already
have a pluggable decision point — and if not, is divergence here something you'd rather
avoid? If so, say and I'll drop it; that's a good reason.

Otherwise I'm happy to send the PR: default path byte-for-byte unchanged, the type, the
fail-closed timeout, and one worked example decider.

Disclosure: I build an authorization service for agents, so an external PDP is
obviously useful to me. I've tried to write this as it would stand without that —
push back if it reads otherwise.

Vorherrschende Sprache
TypeScript
Sterne
6.6k
Forks
914
Ø Merge
22 Std. 44 Min.
Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
137

Entwicklungsumgebung

  • Enthält ein Dockerfile oder eine Docker-Compose-Datei
  • Hat eine Pull-Request-Vorlage
  • Kein Beitragsleitfaden

Erste Schritte

  1. Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
  2. Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
  3. Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
  4. Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.

Mehr aus CopilotKit/OpenBot

Alle Issues in CopilotKit/OpenBot

Ähnliche Issues

Weitere Issues zu TypeScript

Neue Issues direkt in Ihr Postfach

Eine kurze Übersicht über anfängerfreundliche GitHub-Issues.