Replies: 1 comment
|
This boundary is very relevant for AIPOU too, especially for computer-use agents that can click, submit, export, or send things in a credentialed browser. The split I would suggest is:
That separation matters because an authorization receipt should not imply useful work happened, and a reward/work receipt should not grant permission to execute a sensitive action. AIPOU examples/docs:
For Agent-S, I would expect the strongest insertion point to be just before consequential browser side effects: submit, send, export, purchase, account mutation, or workflow close. The receipt can then be linked to the post-work |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I’m testing an authority-before-action receipt pattern for computer-use agents.
The gap I’m looking at is narrow: before an agent executes a consequential action, can the workflow prove that this exact action was authorized before execution?
For this class of workflow, the boundary seems especially relevant around credentialed browser submits, external sends, workflow close, and data export.
Reference benchmark:
https://github.com/neurarelay/relay-action-card#agent-authority-benchmark
Dry-run command:
The benchmark is refs-only and local/dry-run: no private payloads, no downstream execution by Neura, and no claim that this project has adopted, endorsed, integrated, or been evaluated by it.
Question for maintainers/users here: is a pre-action authority receipt a useful boundary for this repo’s agent workflows, or would the better insertion point be somewhere else in the execution lifecycle?
All reactions