Reading through the toolkit and your Medium piece on the 11-agent production system — the three-gate design is clean. TrustGate covers WHO, GovernanceGate covers behavioral HOW, ReliabilityGate handles the SRE reliability layer. The OWASP Agentic Top 10 mapping is solid.
Two questions about design scope, genuinely curious whether these are on the roadmap or intentionally out of scope:
1. Constitutional constraints (WHY layer)
GovernanceGate enforces policy rules configured by administrators. But what governs agent behavior in situations the policy writer didn't anticipate?
The specific failure mode I keep running into: an agent that is fully policy-compliant can still make decisions that violate the intent of its mandate in novel situations. Policy rules are necessarily incomplete — they cover the scenarios someone wrote rules for. Constitutional constraints are different: they're hard limits that apply even when no specific policy rule matches, and they need to survive adversarial prompt injection (not just normal operation).
Your Medium post frames GovernanceGate as making unauthorized actions "physically impossible" — does that extend to novel scenarios outside the configured policy scope, or does it rely on policy rules being comprehensive?
2. Economic scope and blast radius (ECONOMIC layer)
The 11-agent system you describe has real economic authority — agents that can spend, provision, communicate, or take actions with downstream cost. None of the three gates currently address:
- Per-action spend ceilings (independent of policy rules)
- Cross-agent aggregate spend tracking (if agents share a budget pool)
- Worst-case blast radius: if one agent in the system is compromised for 60 minutes, what's the maximum economic or operational damage it can cause before the circuit breaker fires?
ReliabilityGate's circuit breaker pattern handles reliability failures well. But economic scope seems like a separate dimension — an agent can be reliable (low error rate, normal latency) while still executing economically harmful actions at scale.
I've been working on an open scoring rubric that tries to make these layers assessable across six dimensions: cgst-framework. Happy to run AGT through it and share results if useful — or just use it as a reference for what these layers might look like concretely.
Mostly curious about the design philosophy: are WHY and ECONOMIC intentionally application-layer concerns in AGT's model, or gaps you're planning to address?
Reading through the toolkit and your Medium piece on the 11-agent production system — the three-gate design is clean. TrustGate covers WHO, GovernanceGate covers behavioral HOW, ReliabilityGate handles the SRE reliability layer. The OWASP Agentic Top 10 mapping is solid.
Two questions about design scope, genuinely curious whether these are on the roadmap or intentionally out of scope:
1. Constitutional constraints (WHY layer)
GovernanceGate enforces policy rules configured by administrators. But what governs agent behavior in situations the policy writer didn't anticipate?
The specific failure mode I keep running into: an agent that is fully policy-compliant can still make decisions that violate the intent of its mandate in novel situations. Policy rules are necessarily incomplete — they cover the scenarios someone wrote rules for. Constitutional constraints are different: they're hard limits that apply even when no specific policy rule matches, and they need to survive adversarial prompt injection (not just normal operation).
Your Medium post frames GovernanceGate as making unauthorized actions "physically impossible" — does that extend to novel scenarios outside the configured policy scope, or does it rely on policy rules being comprehensive?
2. Economic scope and blast radius (ECONOMIC layer)
The 11-agent system you describe has real economic authority — agents that can spend, provision, communicate, or take actions with downstream cost. None of the three gates currently address:
ReliabilityGate's circuit breaker pattern handles reliability failures well. But economic scope seems like a separate dimension — an agent can be reliable (low error rate, normal latency) while still executing economically harmful actions at scale.
I've been working on an open scoring rubric that tries to make these layers assessable across six dimensions: cgst-framework. Happy to run AGT through it and share results if useful — or just use it as a reference for what these layers might look like concretely.
Mostly curious about the design philosophy: are WHY and ECONOMIC intentionally application-layer concerns in AGT's model, or gaps you're planning to address?