About CodeRifts API Governance
CodeRifts API Governance is an MCP server in the Healthcare category: signed, offline-verifiable decisions on API contract changes for AI agents. Three tools: preflight_change_set, verify_receipt, get_decision_details. The tool surface is pinned — its digest is published and checkable from three independent sources.
Install
From source
git clone https://github.com/coderifts/api-governanceThis server has no ConduID identity, so agent calls to it are not receipted. Pin the version you install and review the source before granting it credentials.
Tools (3)
get_decision_detailsRetrieve a PAST CodeRifts decision by decision_id (or fingerprint): full
report payload, breaking changes list, scores, and linked receipt metadata
if stored.
Use this when:
- You have a decision_id (or fingerprint) from a previous preflight, PR
comment, or CI log and need to inspect or explain that past decision.
- You are auditing why a prior ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK was issued.
- You are NOT requesting a new analysis of current before/after specs.
Do not use when:
- You need a decision for the CURRENT uncommitted or PR head change set —
call coderifts.preflight_change_set with the current artifacts.
- You hold a receipt token and only need cryptographic/lifecycle verification —
use coderifts.verify_receipt.
- You have no decision_id/fingerprint — run preflight first to create one.
Inputs: at least one of decision_id (preferred) or fingerprint is required
(empty {} is rejected by the server as INVALID_INPUT). Returns the stored
decision document or not_found.
Scoping — fingerprint lookup returns only YOUR OWN decisions. A fingerprint is
derived from content, not from an account, so two callers who preflight
byte-identical specs derive the same one; the lookup is therefore constrained
to the decisions your credential can prove it owns.
A decision that exists but is not yours returns the SAME not_found as one that
was never issued. This is deliberate: a distinguishable "exists but forbidden"
would confirm to any caller that a given content hash had been decided on by
someone, which is the fact the scoping exists to withhold. Do not read
not_found as proof that no such decision exists anywhere.
Decisions persisted without context.repository cannot currently be attributed
to an account, and are not retrievable by fingerprint at all — not by their
owner either. Retrieve those by decision_id, which is unchanged and unscoped.
This is a limitation of what older stored rows carry, not a property of the
lookup: rows written from now on record the account directly, so the gap
narrows as older rows age out. If a fingerprint you expect returns not_found,
use the decision_id before concluding the decision is missing.
When the stored envelope carries control fields, control_envelope.next_agent_step
is structured remediation guidance the agent MAY follow for non-CONTINUE
execution_action values (null on CONTINUE*). Still branch on execution_action;
next_agent_step is a suggestion, not permission.
Parameters not published.
preflight_change_setPreflight a COMPLETE base→head change set of contract artifacts and return
risk score and breaking-change analysis — plus, on the AUTHORIZE path only, a governance decision
(ALLOW / WARN / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / BLOCK) and a signed chain-receipt when applicable. ANALYZE
returns informational risk only: analysis_outcome, may_execute:false, no decision, no receipt.
Requires a pending base→head (before/after) contract change you are about to
act on (merge, deploy, publish, or register tools). No pending change set →
do not call this tool.
Use this when:
- You are about to merge, push, deploy, publish, or register/expose agent tools,
AND the change includes ≥1 contract artifact (OpenAPI/Swagger, GraphQL SDL,
gRPC/protobuf, AsyncAPI, MCP manifest, or agent tool schemas: type=agent_tools,
including before re-registering tools with a runtime).
- You have (or can assemble) FULL base and head for every changed contract
artifact in this set — not a single-file subset when other contract files also
change.
- You need a NEW decision for the CURRENT change; you do not already hold a
currently-valid receipt for this exact target/operation.
- You hold a receipt for a different operation or target than the act you will
perform (e.g. ALLOW for merge, now deploying). A receipt authorizes ONE
operation: a merge receipt does not authorize a deploy. Run a NEW preflight
with context.operation set to that operation (deploy, publish); a
differently-scoped receipt is not reusable authorization and will fail at
the gate.
Do not use when:
- The change is documentation-only (README, guides, comments) with no contract
artifact content change — do not call any CodeRifts tool.
- You already hold a signed receipt and only need to check it is authentic and
currently valid — use coderifts.verify_receipt instead.
- You need details of a PREVIOUS decision by decision_id — use
coderifts.get_decision_details instead.
- You want a static 0–100 "agent readiness" score for one OpenAPI/MCP file and
there is no pending base→head mutate — use coderifts.agent_readiness_score
(advanced / opt-in; not one of the three default tools). If that tool is not
in your available list, call none of the CodeRifts tools; do not substitute
preflight_change_set.
- You cannot supply both before and after (or base and head) for the artifacts
that change — fix the change set first; do not invent empty before specs.
Inputs: list of artifacts, each with type, before, after (or equivalent), plus
optional operation (merge|deploy|tool_call|publish), environment/stakes, and
context. Opt-in derivation:"server" (proven tenant↔repo binding + context.repository
+ base + head): omit artifacts[] — the server lists the contract-class set via the
SCM provider for the proven binding (GitHub App Compare, or GitLab/Bitbucket Compare
with a per-request X-Coderifts-Scm-Token, never stored; completeness_mode
SERVER_DERIVED). Default (flag absent) is unchanged. Returns decision,
execution_action, risk fields, and chain_receipt when issued.
CHANGE SOURCE — EXACTLY ONE, ENFORCED AT THE ROUTE (400), NOT BY THIS SCHEMA.
Supply either artifacts[] OR derivation:"server". All three of these are rejected
with HTTP 400 INVALID_INPUT, on analyze and on authorize alike:
• neither artifacts[] nor derivation → "artifacts must be a non-empty array"
• authorize with context.operation but no change source → same 400
• artifacts[] together with derivation:"server" → "derivation:"server" forbids
caller-supplied artifacts[] — one source of truth per request"
This constraint is NOT expressible in the schema you are reading: a top-level
oneOf/allOf union is rejected by at least one major MCP client (measured), so the
schema stays permissive and the route is the enforcement point. Do not read schema
acceptance as request validity — verified live against these exact three shapes on
2026-08-26, over REST and over MCP tools/call (isError:true on all three).
Mode (required): pass preflight_mode. Use "analyze" for informational risk only
(returns analysis_outcome with may_execute:false, no decision/execution_action/
safe_for_agent, no receipt). Use "authorize" for the operation-bound path that can
mint a receipt (requires context.operation: merge|deploy|publish|tool_call). Under
Decision Spec 2.0 the mode is mandatory; omission is an error unless a legacy
decision_spec_version "1.0" pin is set.
Branch on execution_action only (CONTINUE | CONTINUE_WITH_MONITORING | REQUEST_APPROVAL | STOP).
On non-CONTINUE authorize responses, control_envelope.next_agent_step is a structured
remediation SUGGESTION the agent MAY follow (action, reason, resume_condition, then_call).
It is NOT permission and NOT a control-flow override — still branch on execution_action.
On CONTINUE / CONTINUE_WITH_MONITORING, next_agent_step is null (no remediation step).
Human tier remains human_report.next_steps_prose (same source; prose, not machine).
Parameters not published.
verify_receiptVerify a CodeRifts signed chain-receipt you ALREADY HOLD: cryptographic
authenticity (signature + key id), body binding, and — when lifecycle indices
are available — whether it is currently valid authorization (not expired,
superseded, or revoked) for a stated operation/target.
Use this when:
- You already obtained a chain_receipt / receipt token from a prior preflight
(or CI artifact) and are about to act (merge/deploy) under that receipt.
- A contract-gate or policy requires offline/online proof that the receipt is
authentic for this change before proceeding.
- You must distinguish "signature ok" from "currently authorized" (stale or
superseded receipts must not be treated as live approval).
Do not use when:
- You do not have a receipt yet — call coderifts.preflight_change_set first.
- You need a NEW decision for a changed base→head set — preflight again;
verify_receipt does not re-diff specs.
- The receipt you hold binds a different operation or target than the one you
are about to perform — call coderifts.preflight_change_set with
context.operation set to that operation (a merge receipt does not authorize
a deploy); verify_receipt cannot re-scope or re-issue a decision.
- You only need human-readable history of an old decision_id without a receipt
token — use coderifts.get_decision_details.
- The change set itself is unknown or incomplete — fix the change set and
preflight; do not "verify" a placeholder.
Inputs: receipt token (required); optional intended context (operation, environment,
fingerprint, target_id, audience, repository/branch/pull_request, base/head) and the
body_hash-bound decision_result envelope. 30s clock-skew leeway on expiry; 0s for
destructive operations in production when the intended context declares them.
Returns { valid, status, currently_authorized (bool|null), reason, payload, authz_* }.
Branch on currently_authorized; null = not evaluated.
When a decision envelope is also in hand (e.g. from a prior preflight), its
control_envelope.next_agent_step (if present) is structured remediation guidance
the agent MAY follow after a non-CONTINUE decision — still branch on
execution_action; next_agent_step is suggestion, not permission.
Parameters not published.
Ask AI
✦
Ask AI about CodeRifts API Governance
Powered by Claude · Grounded in docs
I know everything about CodeRifts API Governance. Ask me about installation, configuration, usage, or troubleshooting.
Security checks
6 checks have not been run yet.