docs: connect agent credentials to runtime evidence - #300
Draft
imran-siddique wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #267.
What changed
docs/integrations/agent-credentials.mdwith the credential / manifest / runtime-evidence division of concernsWhy
The remaining CoSAI WS4 follow-up needed one durable integration pattern connecting a credential decision to the exact pre-execution manifest and separately signed runtime evidence. The guide keeps those assurance layers distinct and does not treat a producer-reported stop reason as proof.
The upstream status is explicit: OCSF #1704 and #1724 are open proposals as of August 2026, and unassigned class number 5050 must not be emitted as core OCSF.
Review context
This is the first draft Imran offered in cosai-oasis/ws4-secure-design-agentic-systems#149. Review and co-authorship are invited from @imolloy, @benhylau, @ksingh299, @akolekar-zs, and @rithikha, as proposed in #267.
Validation
git diff --check— passedpython -m mkdocs build— passedpython -m mkdocs build --strict— blocked by 12 pre-existing warnings in unrelated pages; the new guide introduced no warningNo SDK, schema, or conformance behavior changes.