Does GitAgent validate check prompt definitions for suspicious patterns? Instructions to access filesystems, exfiltrate env vars, call external endpoints? Seems like a natural extension if you're already running validation in CI.
Does GitAgent validate check prompt definitions for suspicious patterns? Instructions to access filesystems, exfiltrate env vars, call external endpoints? Seems like a natural extension if you're already running validation in CI.
If an LLM hallucinates in production and decides to execute a destructive tool defined in SKILL.md (like dropping a table or issuing a Stripe refund), a Git PR approval process doesn't help you mid-flight.
We've been dealing with this exact runtime gap and ended up building VantaGate (an open spec / stateless API layer) specifically to act as a circuit breaker for these frameworks. Instead of just validating the prompt statically, we intercept the tool call at runtime. The agent hits a POST /checkpoint, parks its execution, and routes a 1-click [APPROVE]/[REJECT] to the team's Slack.
Once a human approves, it resumes the agent's workflow with an HMAC-SHA256 signed payload. This also solves the exact observability/audit trail issue scka-de mentioned below, because you get a cryptographic log of exactly who authorized that specific API call at runtime.
Defining the skills in Git is a great first step, but without a stateless human-in-the-loop layer at execution time, giving agents write-access to external endpoints remains a massive enterprise risk.