Hacktoberfest 2026:メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

EABC/cMCP profile: map order_create to execution_id, authorized-intent, observed-effect and execution scope

オープン
#290 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
35/100
issue の種類
ドキュメント
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
python
領域
documentation

調査の方向性

Start by reviewing Discussion #50 and the existing cMCP/TRACE integration material to identify the profile’s intended location and current field conventions. The issue names no files or tests, and asks maintainers to settle the profile location, correlation and authority fields, and how Execution Scope should be represented. Done means those questions are resolved and the agreed profile contract is ready to document.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

Summary

Following Discussion #50, this issue proposes an EABC interoperability profile for cMCP using fields/mechanisms already present in cMCP/TRACE where possible, and isolates the remaining Execution Scope question.

The intent is not to claim native EABC conformance for cMCP. The profile asks what can be mapped directly, what is adapter-level, and what remains unmapped.

Existing mappings

EABC concern cMCP / TRACE mechanism Status
Effect correlation cMCP execution_id + TRACE references[] with rel: observed-effect MAPPED
Authority binding Cedar decision + TRACE references[] with rel: authorized-intent for an externally held grant MAPPED
Exact execution binding cMCP execution/action binding at the forwarding seam MAPPED at the tested adapter seam
Execution Scope declaration of all paths capable of producing the protected effect OPEN / NEW

Concrete example: order_create

The EABC example uses an authorized intent whose parameters include an item/product and quantity, with the resulting protected operation represented as an order_create effect.

The intended evidence chain is:

authorized intent
      ↓
Cedar decision
      ↓
execution_id
      ↓
execution scope
      ↓
order_create
      ↓
observed effect

The corresponding EABC question is:

For the declared order_create effect domain, are all paths capable of producing that effect inside the mediated execution boundary?

This is the Execution Scope / Complete Mediation part. Merely observing MCP forwarding does not establish that arbitrary alternative paths to the same downstream effect are impossible.

Current EABC evidence boundary

Our existing EABC/cMCP work classifies cMCP mediation as scope-bounded rather than universal. It demonstrates an adapter-level execution seam and exact request binding, but does not claim universal downstream effect mediation or physical-world effect proof.

Therefore the profile should preserve:

  • scoped mediation claims;
  • explicit NOT_CLAIMED / gap status where evidence is absent;
  • separation of authorization, execution correlation, and downstream effect observation.

Requested maintainer feedback

  1. Is this the right location and shape for an EABC/cMCP interoperability profile?
  2. Is execution_id the intended cMCP correlation anchor for the profile?
  3. Is rel: authorized-intent the appropriate authority-binding relation when the grant is held outside cMCP?
  4. What is the canonical cMCP representation for Execution Scope: the set/topology of effect-producing paths, or another existing field/object?
  5. If cMCP does not currently represent that scope, should the gap be tracked as a separate cMCP issue rather than extended in the integration profile?

No PR is attached yet. The goal of this issue is to agree the profile location and field contract before adding repository content.

主要言語
Python
スター
5
フォーク
27
平均マージ
1日 13時間
マージ済み PR(30日)
104

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

agentrust-io/integrations のほかの issue

agentrust-io/integrations の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。