tegwick
68ad039a3f
approval-engine flagged the class one message earlier -- a contract whose examples contradict its prose gets implemented as its examples -- and yesterday's package was a fresh instance of it, committed while flagging it. The published rule required context.approval.status == "approved" and counted context.approval.approvals[].subject_id. Neither field exists. approval-engine's approval_claim.schema.json has `state` (whose operative value is `valid`, not `approved`) and carries no approver list at all. The rule was unsatisfiable: every live destroy would have denied dual_control_required no matter how good the approval was. It failed closed, so it was never a hole, but it was policy written against a shape of our own devising rather than a published one. The rule now consumes valid_now from the real claim, guarded on kind and issuer. valid_now is the summary predicate that already folds in the distinct-approver threshold, with reason_code insufficient_approvers for a claim that failed it -- so this is also the correct layering, not just the correct shape. Counting approvers here is exactly the duplication GH-DEC-2026-005 removes; the compensating property is reconstructability at the issuer under 9.6, which is approval-engine's. Recorded as a correction section in the package and the vocabulary doc rather than quietly rewritten. 25 Rego tests and 29 fixtures pass, covering insufficient_approvers, consumed, revoked, approved-but-not-yet- valid, foreign issuer, and wrong kind. Two things the package deliberately does not do, both now written down: it does not compare binding.pdp_digest, because the request digest is computed after policy evaluation and a Rego rule cannot see it; and it makes no cross-check that the claim was approved for this action and target, because the claim's binding uses approval-engine's vocabulary and no mapping between the two is published. Inventing one would silently accept a claim approved for something else. Both belong to the PEP until a mapping exists, and that is worth closing before SECRETS-WP-0007-T04 makes destroy reachable. Also swept the other published fixtures on approval-engine's reasoning. One more instance: the inner decision in examples/caring/action_authorization.json declared contract_version flex-auth.decision-record.v1 while its provenance omitted policy_package_digest, registry_snapshot_digest, and input_claim_digests -- all published contract fields since 2026-09-02. Completed. The remaining example context vocabularies are consumer-owned and match their integrations. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| check_request_allow_destroy_dual_control.json | ||
| check_request_allow_rotate.json | ||
| check_request_deny_destroy_without_claim.json | ||
| check_request_deny_revoke_not_an_action.json | ||
| check_request_deny_unknown_subject.json | ||
| policy_fixtures.yaml | ||
| policy_package.md | ||
| protected_system_manifest.yaml | ||
| README.md | ||
| registry_snapshot.json | ||
| subject_manifest.yaml | ||
secrets-engine example
Policy package, manifests, and fixtures for secrets-engine's gated
catalog-lane operations. Opened by FLEX-DEC-2026-005, carried by
FLEX-WP-0021.
| File | What it is |
|---|---|
policy_package.md |
secrets-engine.catalog-lane.lifecycle v1, allow_ttl: 15m |
protected_system_manifest.yaml |
the secret-catalog-lane resource type and twelve actions |
subject_manifest.yaml |
the single secrets-engine service identity |
registry_snapshot.json |
loadable snapshot combining both manifests |
policy_fixtures.yaml |
29 fixtures — 11 allows, dual control both ways, and every denial branch |
check_request_*.json |
standalone requests for POST /v1/check |
The action vocabulary is secrets-engine's, delivered under
FLEX-WP-0021-T01 and recorded in
../../docs/secrets-engine-action-vocabulary.md.
Read that before changing any action string here.
Verify
go run ./cmd/flex-auth validate -kind policy -file examples/secrets-engine/policy_package.md
go run ./cmd/flex-auth load-registry -file examples/secrets-engine/registry_snapshot.json
25 Rego tests and 29 fixtures.
Not yet deployed
There is no flex-auth-secrets-engine pin yet (FLEX-WP-0021-T04), so
secrets-engine has no address to call. Their policy pin
(SECRETS_ENGINE_AUTHORIZATION_POLICY_PACKAGE / _VERSION) stays unset and
fail-closed until FLEX-WP-0021-T05 hands them the published package and the
Service DNS. Do not configure it from this directory.