signed-audit-trails-recipe
Step-by-step cookbook for setting up cryptographically signed audit trails on Claude Code tool calls
Install / Use
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-recipeInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
AutomationSupported Platforms
Our assessment of signed-audit-trails-recipe
signed-audit-trails-recipe scores 95/100 on our quality scale, 138th of 1,267 Automation skills we index (top 11%).
Its SKILL.md is 11 KB long, well organised into 17 sections with 11 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.
With 39,920 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 5 days ago, so signed-audit-trails-recipe is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
Safety scan
No issues foundOur scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands. An AI review of the same text found nothing harmful.
AI review by kimi-k2.7-code on 2026-09-25. Automated pattern scan on 2026-09-25. It catches known dangerous patterns, not every risk — read a skill before letting an agent act on it.
signed-audit-trails-recipe compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than signed-audit-trails-recipe; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| signed-audit-trails-recipe (this skill)by wshobson | 95 | 39.9k | 5d ago | SKILL.md |
| Agent-Reachby Panniantong | 100 | 85.4k | 10d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| headroomby headroomlabs-ai | 100 | 73.8k | today | CLAUDE.md |
| rufloby ruvnet | 100 | 73.3k | 1d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| CowAgentby zhayujie | 100 | 47.1k | today | CLAUDE.md |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install signed-audit-trails-recipe?
- Run
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-recipe. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does signed-audit-trails-recipe work with?
- It is written for Claude Code, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is signed-audit-trails-recipe safe to use?
- Our scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands. An AI review of the same text found nothing harmful. It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is signed-audit-trails-recipe still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 5 days ago, so signed-audit-trails-recipe is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: signed-audit-trails-recipe description: Step-by-step cookbook for setting up cryptographically signed audit trails on Claude Code tool calls. Use when explaining, evaluating, or demonstrating the pattern before committing to the protect-mcp runtime hooks. Covers Cedar policy, Ed25519 receipts, offline verification, tamper detection, CI/CD integration, and SLSA composition.
Signed Audit Trails for Claude Code Tool Calls
Cookbook-style walkthrough for cryptographically signed receipts on every
Claude Code tool call. This is the teaching skill. For the runtime
implementation, install the protect-mcp plugin.
What this gives you
Every tool call (Bash, Edit, Write, WebFetch) is:
- Evaluated against a Cedar policy before execution. If the policy denies the call, the tool does not run.
- Signed as an Ed25519 receipt after execution. Receipts are JCS-canonical, hash-chained, and verifiable offline by anyone with the public key.
An auditor, regulator, or counterparty can verify the full chain later with a
single CLI command (npx @veritasacta/verify receipts/*.json). No network
call, no vendor lookup, no trust in the operator.
When to use the pattern
- Regulated environments (finance, healthcare, critical infrastructure) where you need tamper-evident evidence of agent behavior
- CI/CD pipelines where you want to prove that a policy gate held for every automated build step
- Multi-party collaboration where a counterparty wants to verify your agent's behavior without trusting your operator
- Compliance contexts (EU AI Act Article 12, SLSA provenance for agent-built software) where standard logging is not sufficient
Step 1: Install the hook configuration
Create .claude/settings.json in your project root:
{
"hooks": {
"PreToolUse": [
{
"matcher": ".*",
"hook": {
"type": "command",
"command": "npx protect-mcp@latest evaluate --policy ./protect.cedar --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --fail-on-missing-policy false"
}
}
],
"PostToolUse": [
{
"matcher": ".*",
"hook": {
"type": "command",
"command": "npx protect-mcp@latest sign --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --output \"$TOOL_OUTPUT\" --receipts ./receipts/ --key ./protect-mcp.key"
}
}
]
}
}
The first run of protect-mcp sign generates ./protect-mcp.key (Ed25519
private key) if one does not exist. Commit the public key fingerprint
(visible in any receipt's public_key field); do not commit the private
key.
Add the private key and receipt directory to .gitignore:
echo "./protect-mcp.key" >> .gitignore
echo "./receipts/" >> .gitignore
Step 2: Write a Cedar policy
Create ./protect.cedar:
// Allow all read-oriented tools by default.
permit (
principal,
action in [Action::"Read", Action::"Glob", Action::"Grep", Action::"WebSearch"],
resource
);
// Allow Bash commands from a safe list only.
permit (
principal,
action == Action::"Bash",
resource
) when {
context.command_pattern in [
"git", "npm", "pnpm", "yarn", "ls", "cat", "pwd",
"echo", "test", "node", "python", "make"
]
};
// Explicit deny on destructive commands. Cedar deny is authoritative.
forbid (
principal,
action == Action::"Bash",
resource
) when {
context.command_pattern in ["rm -rf", "dd", "mkfs", "shred"]
};
// Restrict writes to the project directory.
permit (
principal,
action in [Action::"Write", Action::"Edit"],
resource
) when {
context.path_starts_with == "./"
};
Four rules:
- Read-oriented tools always allowed
Bashallowed for safe command patterns (git,npm, etc.)Bash rm -rfand similar destructive commands explicitly denied- Writes allowed only within the project (
./prefix)
Cedar forbid rules take precedence over permit rules, so destructive
commands cannot be bypassed by a later permissive rule.
Step 3: Use Claude Code normally
Start Claude Code. Every tool call goes through both hooks:
You: Please read the README and summarize it.
Claude: I will read README.md.
[PreToolUse: Read ./README.md -> allow]
[Tool: Read executes]
[PostToolUse: receipt rcpt-a8f3c9d2 signed to ./receipts/]
... summary of README ...
A session of 20 tool calls produces 20 receipts, each hash-chained to its predecessor.
Step 4: Inspect a receipt
cat ./receipts/$(ls -t ./receipts/ | head -1)
{
"receipt_id": "rcpt-a8f3c9d2",
"receipt_version": "1.0",
"issuer_id": "claude-code-protect-mcp",
"event_time": "2026-04-17T12:34:56.123Z",
"tool_name": "Read",
"input_hash": "sha256:a3f8c9d2e1b7465f...",
"decision": "allow",
"policy_id": "protect.cedar",
"policy_digest": "sha256:b7e2f4a6c8d0e1f3...",
"parent_receipt_id": "rcpt-3d1ab7c2",
"public_key": "4437ca56815c0516...",
"signature": "4cde814b7889e987..."
}
Every field except signature and public_key is covered by the Ed25519
signature. Modifying any field after signing invalidates the signature.
Step 5: Verify the receipt chain
npx @veritasacta/verify ./receipts/*.json
Exit codes:
| Code | Meaning |
|------|---------|
| 0 | All receipts verified; chain intact |
| 1 | A receipt failed signature verification (tampered, or wrong key) |
| 2 | A receipt was malformed |
Step 6: Demonstrate tamper detection
Modify any receipt's decision field from allow to deny:
python3 -c "
import json, os
path = './receipts/' + sorted(os.listdir('./receipts'))[-1]
r = json.loads(open(path).read())
r['decision'] = 'deny'
open(path, 'w').write(json.dumps(r))
"
npx @veritasacta/verify ./receipts/*.json
The verifier exits with code 1 and reports which receipt failed. The
Ed25519 signature no longer matches the JCS-canonical bytes of the
tampered payload.
Restore the field and verification passes again.
How the cryptography works
Three invariants make receipts verifiable offline across any conformant implementation:
- JCS canonicalization (RFC 8785) before signing. Keys sorted, whitespace minimized, strings NFC-normalized. Two independent implementations produce byte-identical signing payloads for the same receipt content.
- Ed25519 signatures (RFC 8032) over the canonical bytes. Deterministic, fixed-size, no nonce dependency.
- Hash chain linkage. Each receipt's
parent_receipt_hashis the SHA-256 of the predecessor's canonical form. Insertions, deletions, and reorderings break later receipts.
For the formal wire format see draft-farley-acta-signed-receipts.
Cross-implementation interop
The receipt format has four independent implementations today:
| Implementation | Language | Use case | |----------------|----------|----------| | protect-mcp | TypeScript | Claude Code, Cursor, MCP hosts | | protect-mcp-adk | Python | Google Agent Development Kit | | sb-runtime | Rust | OS-level sandbox (Landlock + seccomp) | | APS governance hook | Python | CrewAI, LangChain |
A receipt produced by any of them verifies against
@veritasacta/verify.
The auditor does not need to trust the operator's tooling choice: the format
is the contract.
CI/CD integration
Gate merges on receipt chain verification so no build lands with a broken evidence chain:
# .github/workflows/verify-receipts.yml
name: Verify Decision Receipts
on: [push, pull_request]
jobs:
verify:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- uses: actions/setup-node@v4
with: { node-version: '20' }
- name: Run governed agent
run: python scripts/run_agent.py > receipts.jsonl
- name: Verify receipt chain
run: npx @veritasacta/verify receipts.jsonl
Archive the receipts as an artifact so the chain survives beyond the job run:
- name: Upload receipts
if: always()
uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
with:
name: decision-receipts
path: receipts/
Composition with SLSA provenance for agent-built software
When Claude Code builds and releases software (running npm install,
npm build, npm publish as tool calls), the receipt chain is the
per-step build log. SLSA Provenance v1 has an extension point for this: the
byproducts field can reference the receipt chain alongside the build
attestation.
The agent-commit build type documents the pattern using the ResourceDescriptor shape:
{
"name": "decision-receipts",
"digest": { "sha256": "..." },
"uri": "oci://registry/org/build-xyz/receipts:sha256-...",
"annotations": {
"predicateType": "https://veritasacta.com/attestation/decision-receipt/v0.1",
"signerRole": "supervisor-hook"
}
}
The SLSA provenance is signed by the builder identity; the receipt attestation is signed by the supervisor-hook identity. Two trust domains, cross-referenced at the byproduct layer. See slsa-framework/slsa#1594 for the composition discussion.
Common pitfalls
Private key in version control. The generated ./protect-mcp.key must
not be committed. The examples above add it to .gitignore. If a key is
accidentally committed, rotate immediately (delete the key file and let the
hook regenerate on next run).
Hook command quoting. The hooks receive $TOOL_NAME and $TOOL_INPUT
as environment variables. Keep the quoting "$TOOL_INPUT" so inputs with
spaces or special characters pass through intact.
Receipts directory in CI. If Claude Code runs in CI, upload receipts as an artifact at the end of the job or the chain is lost at job end.
Policy is missing. The example PreToolUse hook uses
--fail-on-missing-policy false so an absent ./protect.cedar does not
break Claude Code out of the box. Remove this flag in production so a
missing policy is treated as a hard failure.
Related in this marketplace
protect-mcp— the runtime hook implementation (use this plugin in production)review-agent-governance— require human approval before review-surface actions; composes with protect-mcp
References
draft-farley-acta-signed-receipts— IETF draft, receipt wire format- RFC 8032 — Ed25519
- RFC 8785 — JCS
- Cedar policy language
- protect-mcp on npm
- @veritasacta/verify on npm
- in-toto/attestation#549 — Decision Receipt predicate proposal
- agent-commit build type — SLSA provenance for agent-produced commits
- Microsoft Agent Governance Toolkit (
examples/protect-mcp-governed/) - AWS Cedar for Agents
Related Skills
Agent-Reach
85.4kGive your AI agent eyes to see the entire internet. Read & search Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, GitHub, Bilibili, XiaoHongShu — one CLI, zero API fees.
headroom
73.8kCompress tool outputs, logs, files, and RAG chunks before they reach the LLM. 20% fewer tokens for coding agents, 60-95% fewer tokens for JSON, same answers. Library, proxy, MCP server.
ruflo
73.3k🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated
CowAgent
47.1kOpen-source super AI assistant & Agent Harness. Plans tasks, runs tools and skills, self-evolves with memory and knowledge. Multi-agent, multi-model, multi-channel. Lightweight, extensible, one-line install.
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
