generated from coulomb/repo-seed
Pre-implementation assessment and boundary review
(docs/pre-implementation-assessment.md) lead to three ADRs:
- ADR-001 Go + repo skeleton
- ADR-002 Rego-in-Markdown policy package format
- ADR-003 Topaz-aligned MVP (Topaz spike moves into foundations)
New workplan FLEX-WP-0005 (Foundations and Topaz Alignment) is inserted
between WP-0001 (done) and WP-0002 (core). WP-0002 pins Rego-in-Markdown
for P2.3; WP-0004 P4.1 refocused from Topaz evaluation to Topaz adapter.
Go skeleton at repo root: cmd/flex-auth + internal/{registry,policy,
decision,audit,adapters} + pkg/api + Makefile + .golangci.yml + GitHub
Actions CI. make ci green locally; bin/flex-auth --version works.
INTENT/SCOPE cite the NetKingdom IAM Profile and add the ops-warden /
ops-bridge disjoint-surface clarifications.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
184 lines
7.2 KiB
Markdown
184 lines
7.2 KiB
Markdown
# flex-auth Scope
|
|
|
|
## One-liner
|
|
|
|
flex-auth is a policy-as-code authorization registry and control plane for
|
|
NetKingdom-aligned systems.
|
|
|
|
## Core Idea
|
|
|
|
flex-auth turns verified identity claims, resource manifests, relationship
|
|
facts, policy packages, and request context into inspectable authorization
|
|
decisions. It is intentionally separate from identity providers and from the
|
|
applications that enforce decisions.
|
|
|
|
The product should start as a useful standalone local authorization system,
|
|
then grow into delegated mode where Topaz, OpenFGA, SpiceDB, OPA, Cedar,
|
|
Keycloak Authorization Services, Entra, Graph, SCIM, LDAP, and similar systems
|
|
can be coordinated behind a stable flex-auth API.
|
|
|
|
## In Scope
|
|
|
|
- Protected-system registration.
|
|
- Resource namespaces, resource hierarchy, and action vocabularies.
|
|
- Subject, group, team, tenant, role, and service-account records needed for
|
|
authorization.
|
|
- Relationship facts and inherited access.
|
|
- Versioned policy packages with metadata, fixtures, validation, tests, and
|
|
activation state.
|
|
- Deterministic check, batch-check, list-allowed, explain, and decision-record
|
|
capabilities.
|
|
- Local decision logs with policy version and provenance.
|
|
- CLI and service entry points for local development and integration tests.
|
|
- Markitect as the first concrete protected-system consumer.
|
|
- Delegated PDP and directory adapter boundaries after the standalone core is
|
|
stable.
|
|
|
|
## Out of Scope
|
|
|
|
- Acting as an identity provider.
|
|
- Replacing key-cape, NetKingdom SSO, Keycloak, Entra, or other identity
|
|
systems.
|
|
- Owning login, MFA, PKCE, token issuance, token lifecycle, or canonical
|
|
identity profile behavior.
|
|
- Embedding protected-system enforcement logic inside flex-auth.
|
|
- Making Markitect-specific assumptions part of the generic authorization
|
|
model.
|
|
- Forcing a single PDP backend or directory provider.
|
|
- Hiding policy behavior behind opaque administrative toggles.
|
|
|
|
## Relevant When
|
|
|
|
- A protected system needs resource-specific authorization decisions.
|
|
- A team needs policy-as-code packages that can be reviewed, tested, versioned,
|
|
and explained.
|
|
- Authorization must combine identity claims, groups, roles, tenants,
|
|
relationships, context, and resource metadata.
|
|
- A local development workflow needs deterministic authorization behavior
|
|
before enterprise PDP integrations exist.
|
|
- Markitect resources need central authorization decisions and durable audit
|
|
records.
|
|
- A delegated backend needs to be introduced without changing the
|
|
protected-system-facing API.
|
|
|
|
## Not Relevant When
|
|
|
|
- The task is only about authentication, login, token issuance, or MFA.
|
|
- The desired outcome can be handled by coarse identity-provider roles alone.
|
|
- The protected system only needs local development labels and no central
|
|
policy administration.
|
|
- A team is choosing identity-provider configuration rather than
|
|
resource-specific authorization.
|
|
|
|
## Current State
|
|
|
|
The repository contains the intent baseline, authorization landscape
|
|
research, initial workplans, and the pre-implementation assessment and
|
|
ADR set produced on 2026-05-15. `FLEX-WP-0001` is complete. Implementation
|
|
now proceeds through `FLEX-WP-0005 Foundations and Topaz Alignment` —
|
|
which lands the Go skeleton, pins the `FlexAuthResourceManifest` schema,
|
|
runs the Topaz mapping spike, and records ADR-001/002/003 — before the
|
|
standalone policy-as-code core in `FLEX-WP-0002`. Markitect consumer
|
|
integration and delegated PDP/directory adapters are planned after the
|
|
core contracts stabilize.
|
|
|
|
State Hub integration is present through:
|
|
|
|
- `.custodian-brief.md`
|
|
- `state_hub_workstream_id` fields in workplans
|
|
- `state_hub_task_id` fields in task blocks
|
|
- active State Hub dispatch for the `flex-auth` repo
|
|
|
|
## How It Fits
|
|
|
|
flex-auth sits between identity and protected systems:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
key-cape / NetKingdom SSO
|
|
-> verified identity claims
|
|
-> flex-auth authorization registry and policy decisions
|
|
-> protected systems such as Markitect
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Identity systems establish who the caller is and provide coarse claims.
|
|
flex-auth decides what that caller can do to a specific resource under a
|
|
specific context. Protected systems enforce the decision and keep their own
|
|
local diagnostics.
|
|
|
|
## Terminology
|
|
|
|
- **Subject:** Human, service account, group, team, tenant, role, or emergency
|
|
principal.
|
|
- **Resource:** Protected object registered by a system.
|
|
- **Namespace:** Resource type and ownership boundary.
|
|
- **Action:** Operation requested against a resource.
|
|
- **Context:** Request, environment, assurance, workflow, or runtime
|
|
attributes.
|
|
- **Policy package:** Versioned policy-as-code bundle with metadata and tests.
|
|
- **Relationship fact:** Subject-resource or resource-resource relation.
|
|
- **Decision:** Allow, deny, redact, audit-only, or not-applicable outcome with
|
|
reason and provenance.
|
|
- **PDP:** Policy decision point, either flex-auth standalone logic or a
|
|
delegated backend.
|
|
- **PEP:** Policy enforcement point in the protected system.
|
|
|
|
## Related / Overlapping
|
|
|
|
- key-cape / NetKingdom SSO: identity source and coarse claims provider;
|
|
flex-auth consumes the **NetKingdom IAM Profile**
|
|
(`~/the-custodian/canon/standards/iam-profile_v0.1.md`).
|
|
- Markitect: first protected-system consumer and policy enforcement point.
|
|
- Topaz: aligned evaluator. Per ADR-003 the standalone core is shaped
|
|
to match Topaz's Rego + directory model from day one; the Topaz
|
|
adapter in `FLEX-WP-0004` is therefore a small step rather than a
|
|
conversion.
|
|
- OpenFGA and SpiceDB: candidate relationship authorization backends.
|
|
- OPA and Cedar: candidate rule and typed-policy engines.
|
|
- Keycloak Authorization Services: adapter path for Keycloak-centric
|
|
deployments. Default architecture is "Keycloak as SSO only,
|
|
flex-auth owns authorization"; Keycloak AuthZ is one optional
|
|
delegated PDP.
|
|
- Entra, Graph, SCIM, LDAP, and Keycloak APIs: directory and group resolver
|
|
sources.
|
|
|
|
## Disjoint From
|
|
|
|
- **ops-warden** signs short-lived SSH certificates for ops actors
|
|
(`adm`/`agt`/`atm`). That is a separate identity surface — SSH certs,
|
|
not OIDC subjects — and ops-warden disclaims being a resource-policy
|
|
engine. flex-auth and ops-warden therefore do not overlap. (A future
|
|
flow could surface an `agt` actor as a flex-auth subject; nothing in
|
|
the current design requires it.)
|
|
- **ops-bridge** owns SSH reverse-tunnel connectivity and explicitly
|
|
disclaims being a credential authority or policy engine. No overlap.
|
|
|
|
## Provided Capabilities
|
|
|
|
```capability
|
|
type: orientation
|
|
title: Agent orientation
|
|
status: current
|
|
description: Repo intent, boundaries, research, workplan map, and State Hub agent brief are available for new coding agents.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```capability
|
|
type: workplan
|
|
title: Standalone policy core plan
|
|
status: planned
|
|
description: Workplan for schemas, local registry, policy packages, check APIs, list/explain, decision log, CLI/service skeleton, tests, and examples.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```capability
|
|
type: workplan
|
|
title: Markitect consumer integration plan
|
|
status: planned
|
|
description: Workplan for Markitect resource namespace, manifest import, action vocabulary, check fixtures, contract tests, and integration flow.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```capability
|
|
type: workplan
|
|
title: Delegated adapter plan
|
|
status: planned
|
|
description: Workplan for Topaz evaluation, relationship PDP adapters, rule PDP adapters, Keycloak AuthZ path, directory resolvers, and operations docs.
|
|
```
|