Hacktoberfest 2026：维护者为十月标记出来的 issue，仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

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

未关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#290 1 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
35/100
Issue 类型
文档
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
python
领域
documentation

调研方向

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.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

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.

主要语言
Python
星标
5
派生
27
平均合并
1 天 13 小时
30 天内合并 PR
104

环境准备

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

agentrust-io/integrations 的其他 Issue

查看 agentrust-io/integrations 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Python Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。