Files
bot-bottle/docs/prds
didericis cdfaaa3de8
lint / lint (push) Successful in 1m41s
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 30s
test / integration (pull_request) Successful in 18s
Add dlp.outbound_on_match policy (block | redact | supervise)
Give each egress route a policy for what the proxy does when an outbound
DLP detector matches a token, defaulting to the supervise flow added in
the previous commit. The goal is cutting false-positive friction without
weakening default-deny.

- redact: scrub the matched value(s) from the body, non-host headers, and
  path/query via redact_tokens, then re-scan. Forward if clean; fail
  closed with a 403 if a match remains on a surface redaction can't
  rewrite (the hostname, or a unicode-evasion token). For routes where a
  token-shaped value is noise the upstream doesn't need.
- block: the original hard 403, never overridable.
- supervise (default, unset): hold the request for operator approval.

Structural blocks (CRLF, no safelist-able value) stay hard 403s under
every policy.

Threads outbound_on_match from the bottle manifest (manifest_egress)
through the resolved EgressRoute and rendered routes.yaml (egress.py) to
the addon's Route (egress_addon_core), and round-trips it via the
list-egress-routes introspection endpoint. The allow/egress-block tool
descriptions document the new key.

Tests: manifest parse/validation, core parse/validation, full
manifest->render->addon round-trip for redact. README + PRD 0062 updated.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HnvBjPZC5V7qeQpFbQdDmS
2026-06-24 16:50:13 -04:00
..

Product requirement docs

One PRD per feature: what to build, why, and how it's scoped. The PRD is the durable spec — it should stand on its own without a Gitea issue thread (see ../README.md for when a PRD is the right document vs. a research note or a decision record).

Naming and numbering

New PRDs use a prd-new-<kebab-title>.md placeholder name while the PR is open. On merge to main a CI workflow assigns the next sequential number (0024-…, 0025-…), renames the file, and updates the title header. Numbers are never reused; gaps are fine.

Once numbered, the filename stays fixed for the life of the doc.

Status

The Status: line near the top tracks the PRD's lifecycle:

  • Draft — proposed, not yet shipped.
  • Active — the design has shipped to main and is in effect.
  • Superseded by PRD NNNN — replaced by a later PRD; kept for history.
  • Retargeted by PRD NNNN — folded into a later PRD's scope.

Format

# PRD prd-new: <short title>    ← placeholder; CI fills in the number on merge

- **Status:** Draft
- **Author:** <who>
- **Created:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Issue:** #<n>            # optional — convenience pointer only

## Summary
One paragraph: what this builds and the pain it solves.

## Problem
The current state and why it's inadequate.

## Goals / Success Criteria
Bullets a reviewer can check the finished work against.

## Non-goals
What this explicitly does not do — and won't, to head off scope creep.

## Scope
In scope / out of scope, when the boundary needs spelling out.

## Design
How it works: schema, data flow, diagrams, algorithms as needed.

## Implementation chunks
Ordered, mergeable steps (optional; for multi-PR features).

## Open questions
Unresolved decisions — resolve or fold into Design before shipping.

Sections are a guide, not a straitjacket: drop the ones a given PRD doesn't need (a small change rarely needs Scope or Implementation chunks) and add others where they help (e.g. Testing strategy, Alternatives considered, References). Keep the rationale self-contained — inline the reasoning rather than linking out to an issue thread, so the PRD survives a move off Gitea.