4 comments

  • jonmon669139 minutes ago
    A bit ironic that this framework's authorship is completely missing.
  • colinrand1 hour ago
    I like this direction, but I don&#x27;t think the crypto angle is necessary or practical in an enterprise &#x2F; corporate setting. Current audit and compliance frameworks don&#x27;t leverage or really recognize or encourage cryptographically based proof of action, so I don&#x27;t see the agentic world as needing this to drive agentic adoption.<p>However, everything else you lay out is spot on.
    • avaer1 hour ago
      The problem is any non-cryptographic proof can be spoofed at infinite speed. Which really defeats the whole stack.<p>If you are inside a trusted network then yeah, maybe you don&#x27;t need any of this. Then again, maybe you do, it&#x27;s not like inside of an intranet we let human users go wild without cryptographic authentication...
  • wangzhongwang1 hour ago
    This resonates with something I&#x27;ve been thinking about a lot. The current agent ecosystem has a massive gap: we give agents access to tools and skills, but there&#x27;s no standardized way to verify what those skills actually do before execution. It&#x27;s like running unsigned binaries from random sources.<p>A human root of trust is necessary but not sufficient — we also need machine-verifiable manifests for agent capabilities. Something like a package.json for agent skills, but with cryptographic guarantees about permissions and data access patterns.<p>The accountability framework here is a good start. Would love to see it extended with concrete permission models.
  • dhjjdjjjd28 minutes ago
    The Human Root of Trust – public domain framework for agent accountability