Security, governance, and approvals

A governed agent environment where:

• Destructive or costly actions require explicit approval.
• Sensitive data paths are known and constrained.
• Audit trails exist for “who ran what, when” at a level your team needs.
• Sandboxing and isolation match your threat model (see project security documentation).

• Positioned as a security-hardened AI operating system—not a loose script runner.
• Large test footprint in upstream project culture signals seriousness about regressions.
• BYOK and local storage options support strict data handling.
• Documentation includes hardening topics you can adopt incrementally.

1. Threat model: what assets, what adversaries, what failure is unacceptable?
2. Map tools to risk tiers; gate tiers accordingly.
3. Pilot with read-only external access first.
4. Review logs on a schedule; tune alerts.
5. Re-certify when skills, models, or integrations change.

• Owners for security decisions (even one named person helps).
• Change control for provider keys and channel credentials.
• Time to read security guide sections relevant to your deployment.

1. Inventory data classes (public, internal, secret).
2. Configure least privilege for tools and channels.
3. Define approval matrix (what always needs human OK).
4. Run red team scenarios on paper, then try safe simulations.
5. Document incident response for agent misbehavior.

• “List assets this workflow touches and failure modes for each.”
• “What approvals are missing if we add tool X?”
• “Draft a rollback plan if an automated change goes wrong.”

• Policy and tooling match (no “secure on paper only”).
• Key rotation and access reviews have an owner.
• Users know how to stop or isolate a runaway agent.

• Conflating privacy and security—address both explicitly.
• Silent tool sprawl—new integrations without review.
• Assuming defaults fit your org—validate against your auditor’s questions early.