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

Document safe parsing for preToolUse.toolArgs when it is a JSON-encoded string

未关闭 适合新手
#3,349 0 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
2/5
预计耗时
1-3 小时
新手友好度
68/100
Issue 类型
文档
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
冷清
技术栈
python, shell

调研方向

从 Hooks 参考文档及其 preToolUse payload 部分开始。记录 toolArgs 可能是 JSON 编码的字符串,然后添加能够处理无效值或非对象值的安全 Bash 和 Python 解析示例;当 hook 作者能够可靠地检查 command、path 或 url 等字段时,即视为完成。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

area:plugins

Summary

The Hooks reference documents preToolUse.toolArgs as unknown, but does not show how hook authors should safely parse it.

In actual Copilot CLI hook invocations I tested, toolArgs arrived as a JSON-encoded string rather than a parsed object. That may be valid under the current unknown contract, but it is easy for hook authors to assume object-style access and accidentally write hooks that fail to inspect tool arguments.

Because hook failures are fail-open, this is a security footgun for policy-enforcing hooks.

Observed behavior

For preToolUse, the documentation shows the camelCase payload shape as:

{
    sessionId: string;
    timestamp: number;
    cwd: string;
    toolName: string;
    toolArgs: unknown;
}

In tested CLI/App-backed hook invocations, the payload effectively behaved like:

{
  "toolName": "bash",
  "toolArgs": "{\"command\":\"echo hello\"}"
}

rather than:

{
  "toolName": "bash",
  "toolArgs": {
    "command": "echo hello"
  }
}

I am not claiming the string form is invalid. Since the schema says unknown, this may be intentional or implementation-defined. The problem is that the docs do not tell hook authors how to handle it safely.

Why this matters

Security hooks commonly inspect fields like:

.toolArgs.command
.toolArgs.path
.toolArgs.url

If toolArgs is a JSON-encoded string, this kind of access does not work as expected. Depending on the script and shell settings, the hook may fail, emit invalid output, or skip the intended check.

Since hook failures are fail-open, a parsing mistake can silently bypass a security policy.

Request

Please document the expected handling for toolArgs and provide safe parsing examples.

At minimum, the docs should say something like:

toolArgs is unknown and may be a JSON-encoded string. Hook scripts should check its runtime type and parse it before inspecting tool arguments.

A Bash example would help:

INPUT="$(cat)"

TOOL_ARGS_JSON="$(
  jq -c '
    (.toolArgs // .tool_args // .tool_input // {}) as $args
    | if ($args | type) == "string" then ($args | fromjson? // {}) else $args end
  ' <<< "$INPUT"
)"

COMMAND="$(jq -r '.command // ""' <<< "$TOOL_ARGS_JSON")"

Python example:

import json
import sys

payload = json.load(sys.stdin)
tool_args = payload.get("toolArgs", payload.get("tool_input", {}))

if isinstance(tool_args, str):
    try:
        tool_args = json.loads(tool_args)
    except json.JSONDecodeError:
        tool_args = {}

if not isinstance(tool_args, dict):
    tool_args = {}

command = tool_args.get("command", "")

Expected improvement

This would make hook authoring safer, especially for security-focused preToolUse hooks, and reduce the chance of fail-open bypasses caused by incorrect assumptions about the runtime type of toolArgs.

主要语言
Shell
星标
11.2k
派生
1.9k
平均合并
14 小时 16 分钟
30 天内合并 PR
6

贡献指南

打开贡献指南

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。

github/copilot-cli 的其他 Issue

查看 github/copilot-cli 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Shell/Bash Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。