gnu.in.labs / Corpus Méthodologique & Hygiène Mental
0.1 · DRAFTFrançais ↗
← Portal / METHODOLOGYDRAFT14 min

Authority & agents

Identity
EC-M02
Classification
proposed-principle
Prerequisites
Git basics, Reading a test result
Artifacts
Capability table; allowed, denied and expired cases; trace of zero writes on denial.
Success
Each denied case leaves the sentinel file byte-identical. The trace covers instrumented operations, not the absence of every network exit.

Status: methodological draft, to be adapted — not ratified in consuming projects.

Authority is a capability, not a tone

Confident agent output conveys no permission. A scoped capability identifies resources, allowed operations, and expiry.

Zone Examples Rule
Observation read files and tests no mutation
Proposal produce isolated patch no integration
Scoped mutation write approved paths review diff
Integration merge branches separate gate
Publication public push, DNS, deploy dedicated approval
flowchart TD
  H[Operator] --> G[Explicit grant]
  G --> A[Local or remote agent]
  A --> R[Restricted reading]
  A --> P[Isolated proposal]
  P --> V{Independent review}
  V -->|approved| M[Scoped mutation]
  V -->|rejected| S[Stop]

LLM boundaries

Copilot as an interface does not prove prompts stay local. Verify actual model provider, egress, telemetry, extensions, child processes and logs before exposing private sources or secrets.

No transitive grants

Permission to write a worktree does not imply permission to change main, push, manipulate keys or approve your own change.

Exercise

Specify an agent that may edit examples/ but never src/, and report tests without network access.

Self-checkExplicit allow `examples/**`, deny `src/**`, forbid network and push, and set grant expiry. Logs are evidence, not authority.

Engineering problem

Fictional Courier wants to write a report; its agent has only read permission.

Reproducible method

  1. List resource, operation and expiry
  2. check the grant at execution
  3. deny absent operations by default
  4. distinguish a local proposal from an authorized push
  5. log denial without copying protected data.

Responsibilities: the author proposes and records results; the reviewer challenges the oracle; the consuming project owner decides adoption.

Example, counterexample and failure

Example: write examples/report.txt until a UTC deadline. Counterexample: a hidden button serves as access control. Failure: grants are checked before a wait then used after expiry; recheck at execution.

Artifacts and qualification

Capability table; allowed, denied and expired cases; trace of zero writes on denial.

Each denied case leaves the sentinel file byte-identical. The trace covers instrumented operations, not the absence of every network exit.

Transfer exercise

Apply this method to fictional Courier. Produce the artifacts above, then invent a case that invalidates an overbroad conclusion.

Transfer self-checkThe case is fictional and reproducible; baseline is identified; procedure and expected result are explicit; a failure is retained; the conclusion cites artifacts and limits. If any criterion is missing, revise before declaring the method applied.

References

Study edition · not ratified