KedgeFlow places an independent controller between an agent’s intent and target effects. Instead of asking the model whether a tool call is allowed, an issuer signs exact parameters and a shared ledger consumes a grant only once. Testing confirms useful concurrency properties within the chosen mock-target setup. An overly permissive policy still permitted…
Inspect the ClaimsCase · DiggingBeagle record
KedgeFlow ties agent actions to exact permissions with single-use claims
A prototype enforced exact-action grants under concurrency, with one successful claim per allowance in 6,560 ledger attempts, but it did not prove end-to-end correctness against real targets.
Prototype with three etcd members and mock target, not deployed production authorization infrastructure.
Assessment profile
Assessment method- Setting
- research demonstration
- Exploitation
- not established
- Evidence
- Grade B
- Remediation
- not applicable
- AI role
- AGAINST AI
Basis and provenance
The controller and mock-target evaluation concerns proposed enforcement and concurrency, not exploitation of a deployed service. Exactly-once downstream effects and policy intent remain outside its demonstrated boundary. Assessment uses the pinned Claims and source identities; public primary pages were not independently retrievable during this run. Impact remains unrated because field consequence or a comparable scoring rubric is not established.
Assessed Oct 15, 2026 using diggingbeagle.assessment/1.
Evidence basis: CLM-CP7-KEDGE-MOCK · CLM-CP7-KEDGE-LEDGER · KedgeFlow: A Programmable Control Plane for Enterprise AI Agents
At a glance
End-to-end exactly-once effects across real services are not established. Unregistered action routes and incorrect policies remain possible.
Limits and uncertaintyFull account
KedgeFlow places an independent controller between an agent’s intent and target effects. Instead of asking the model whether a tool call is allowed, an issuer signs exact parameters and a shared ledger consumes a grant only once. Testing confirms useful concurrency properties within the chosen mock-target setup. An overly permissive policy still permitted an undesirable operation, so the design does not magically discover correct user intent; it enforces previously chosen authority.
A one-use grant can prevent the same authorization from being consumed twice, but cannot ensure an external service did not commit before a timeout. A valid signature also proves conformity to the issued policy, not that the policy captured the user’s intent.
Claims & evidence
CLM-CP7-KEDGE-MOCKIts controlled 32-call gateway race produced one committed mock effect, while the study identified limitations for production crash recovery and distributed targets.supported
Basis: reported finding
- supportsKedgeFlow: A Programmable Control Plane for Enterprise AI Agentsprimary disclosure
Abstract, mock gateway races and limitations
CLM-CP7-KEDGE-LEDGERThe paper reports 6,560 concurrent ledger claims against 82 allowances with exactly one successful claim per allowance.supported
Basis: reported finding
- supportsKedgeFlow: A Programmable Control Plane for Enterprise AI Agentsprimary disclosure
Abstract, single-resource concurrency evaluation
Unknowns and contradictions
- End-to-end exactly-once effects across real services are not established.
- Unregistered action routes and incorrect policies remain possible.
Sources and citation
Material revision history
- Oct 15, 2026 · Canonical change recorded · new in release · revision 150