CapFence
CapFence is the authorization gateway between AI agents and real-world side effects.
Models may propose actions. CapFence decides whether those actions are allowed before execution.
Use CapFence when agents can touch shell commands, databases, filesystems, payment APIs, internal APIs, SaaS admin tools, or MCP servers.
Use CapFence for AI agent authorization, agent tool-call authorization, MCP tool authorization, pre-execution policy checks, and security controls for agents that can cause real-world side effects.
Agent -> Proposed action -> CapFence -> Gated executor -> Tool
Denied actions do not reach the downstream tool.
Prompts are not security boundaries. CapFence removes the LLM from the authorization path.
First Blocked Action
An ops agent proposes:
rm -rf /var/lib/postgresql
CapFence returns:
Decision: deny
Reason: destructive production filesystem operation
Tool invoked: false
Replay: capfence replay audit_sample.jsonl --policy policy.yaml
The command is blocked before the process is spawned.
Approval Required Action
A support agent proposes:
refund_customer(customer_id="cus_123", amount=5000, reason="billing issue")
The agent may be allowed to request refunds, but not every refund should execute automatically.
CapFence can evaluate the actor, tool, action, resource, amount, environment, and context before execution.
Example policy outcome:
Decision: require_approval
Reason: refund amount exceeds automatic approval threshold
Tool invoked: false
CapFence does not only ask whether an agent can call a tool. It asks whether this specific action, with these arguments, should be allowed now.
Install
pip install capfence
Try It Locally
Define a policy:
deny:
- capability: shell.exec.production
contains: "rm -rf"
allow:
- capability: shell.exec.readonly
Evaluate before execution:
from capfence import ActionEvent, ActionRuntime
runtime = ActionRuntime.from_policy("policies/shell.yaml")
event = ActionEvent.create(
actor="ops-agent",
resource="shell",
action="exec",
environment="production",
payload={"command": "rm -rf /var/lib/postgresql"},
)
verdict = runtime.execute(event)
if not verdict.authorized:
raise PermissionError(f"Blocked before execution: {verdict.reason}")
Expected result:
decision: deny
reason: policy_deny
tool_invoked: false
Replay the decision:
capfence replay audit.jsonl --policy policies/shell.yaml
Replay output:
Recorded: shell.exec.production
Original: DENY
Replayed: DENY
Changed: false
Security Model
CapFence protects the gated tool path.
Recommended architecture:
Agent -> Proposed action -> CapFence -> Gated executor -> Tool
The agent should not hold raw downstream credentials. The executor owns credentials and invokes the tool only after CapFence returns allow.
CapFence is not effective if the agent can call downstream tools directly with raw credentials.
CapFence does not replace sandboxing, secrets management, network controls, IAM, or database-native permissions.
Why Authorization, Not Guardrails?
Prompt guardrails influence what the model says. CapFence controls what the agent is allowed to do.
The security question is not only:
Did the model intend something safe?
The operational question is:
Is this actor authorized to perform this side effect on this resource in this environment?
CapFence is built for that boundary.
What CapFence Checks
CapFence authorization decisions can include:
- actor: which agent or user is requesting the action
- capability: what permission boundary is being exercised
- tool: which tool, API, MCP server, or executor is being called
- action: what operation is being performed
- resource: what object, system, or environment is affected
- payload: what arguments or parameters are being passed
- environment: development, staging, or production
- policy: which allow, deny, or approval rule applies
- audit state: what decision was made and how it can be replayed
This makes CapFence different from simple tool allowlists. The risk is often not only the tool name. The risk is the arguments and context of the tool call.
For example:
refund_customer(amount=50) -> allow
refund_customer(amount=5000) -> require_approval or deny
Both calls use the same tool. They should not necessarily receive the same authorization decision.
How CapFence Is Different
| Category | What it controls | Weakness | CapFence difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prompt guardrails | Model text | Soft boundary | CapFence controls execution |
| LLM judges | Generated content | Probabilistic | CapFence uses deterministic policy |
| Observability | Past behavior | After the fact | CapFence blocks before execution |
| Sandboxes | Process/environment | Not business authorization | CapFence evaluates action semantics |
| IAM | Service identity | Too coarse for agent intent | CapFence authorizes each proposed action |
| Runtime contracts | Agent behavior patterns | Broad or abstract | CapFence focuses on concrete side effects |
Use CapFence For
- AI agent authorization before tool execution
- agent tool-call authorization for risky actions
- pre-execution authorization for AI agents
- MCP tool authorization before upstream servers receive requests
- human approval workflows for sensitive agent actions
- tool-call policy enforcement across agents and executors
- shell command authorization before a process is spawned
- filesystem scope enforcement before secrets or repo-external paths are read
- database write and schema-change controls before queries execute
- payment, refund, CRM, email, SaaS admin, and internal API thresholds before external state changes
- audit replay for policy decisions and blocked actions
CapFence Is Not
- An AI governance platform.
- An observability product.
- An orchestration framework.
- A prompt guardrail.
- An AI judge.
- A compliance dashboard.
- A replacement for downstream IAM, sandboxing, network controls, or database permissions.
CapFence focuses on one specific boundary:
Should this agent action be allowed before execution?
Core Docs
- Agent authority model
- Action authorization
- Runtime authorization
- Policy model
- Decision receipts
- Credential placement
- Fail-closed enforcement
- Replayability
- Threat model
- MCP interception model
Status
CapFence is pre-1.0 public beta infrastructure. The core local YAML policy runtime is intended for production pilots, while framework adapters, policy packs, external policy backends, and release automation should be validated in your environment before high-risk use.
CapFence controls the gated tool path. It does not replace sandboxing, secrets management, network segmentation, downstream IAM, or database-native controls.
| Capability | Maturity |
|---|---|
| Local YAML policy evaluation | Beta |
| Audit hash chaining and replay | Beta |
| LangChain, LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents SDK adapters | Beta |
| MCP, PydanticAI, LlamaIndex, AutoGen adapters | Experimental |
| Starter policy packs and OPA backend path | Experimental |
- Docs: https://capfence.dev/
- PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/capfence/
- Repository: https://github.com/capfencelabs/capfence
No comments yet
Be the first to share your take.