01
Authorized
refund(order=123, amount=50)
Deterministic policy. Default deny.
AgentGuard is a controlled execution boundary for actions routed through it. The dispatched action must match the authorized action, credentials stay inside that decision, and an uncertain external effect stays unresolved until reconciliation.
agentguard-reference 0.1.0 is a minimal public reference implementation. It is separate from AgentGuard Core v0.2.0rc4 and is not a newer Core release.
The action that executes should still be the action that was authorized.
Question · Can this exact action still prove that it is the action that was authorized?
APPLIES TO
AI Platform Teams · AI Security Teams · Agent Infrastructure Engineers · Security-sensitive enterprise AI teams
PROOF
Default-deny authorization · bounded credentials · execution revalidation · reconcile-before-retry
CAPABILITIES
9 declared in the project record
The operating path.
canonical tool · resource · tenant · arguments
default-deny deterministic policy
credential scope · audience · tenant · TTL
live action + freshness + replay checks
protected MCP execution boundary
persist external-effect identity before uncertainty
provider truth before retry
correlated tamper-evident outcome
Mutate the action. Watch dispatch stop.
Authorization is not treated as a historical fact. The live action is checked again at execution.
01
refund(order=123, amount=50)
Deterministic policy. Default deny.
02
scope ≤ authorized · TTL bound
Credential cannot exceed the decision.
03
revalidated intent · nonce held
The action that runs is the action that was allowed.
Authorized = Credentialed = Executed
Attempted drift
refund(order=124, amount=500)
Waiting for the binding to complete before a mutated request is tried.
The constraints that matter.
A probabilistic model can propose an action, but it cannot be the final authority that allows that action to execute.
A correct policy decision is not enough if the execution credential can still exceed the approved tenant, audience, scope, or lifetime.
Approval of an earlier request object does not prove the tool call that reaches the boundary is still the same action.
A provider timeout may hide a successful external effect; retry safety depends on provider truth, not caller certainty.
What would make the preferred answer fail?
EVALUATION METHOD
Runtime security is measured by whether authorized intent remains bound to constrained authority, admitted dispatch, and the external effect that actually occurred.
Intent mutation, replay races, credential-ceiling tests, ambiguous provider outcomes, stale-reconciler schedules, durable effect bindings, and audit verification.
What the evidence actually supports.
Deterministic default-deny policy with signed, request-bound decisions
No LLM is trusted as the authorization authority.
Credential ceilings · live action revalidation · nonce/replay protection
Protection applies to execution routed through the guarded boundary.
Effect binding persists before dispatch; provider reconciliation precedes retry
The design prevents timeout from being treated as proof of failure.
v0.2.0rc4 covers protected MCP stdio + bounded Streamable HTTP and durable reconciliation
Independent security review, long-duration validation, and controlled pilot evidence are not claimed.
Preregistered DEV harness covers replay, stale reconciliation, provider ambiguity, and durable-ledger baselines
Confirmatory trials and research conclusions are not claimed.