Kaiza MCP Server

--- title: "ADR-001: Dual-Role Governance Model" description: "Decision to implement a dual-role governance model separating planning and execution responsibilities" version: "2.0.0" last_updated: "2026-01-31" review_date: "2026-04-30" owners: ["architecture-team"] tags: ["adr", "governance", "roles", "security"] audience: ["technical", "executive"] --- # ADR-001: Dual-Role Governance Model ## Status Accepted ## Context AI-driven development presents unique governance challenges: - Uncontrolled code generation poses security and compliance risks - Traditional access controls are insufficient for AI agents - Need for clear separation between planning and execution phases - Requirement for auditability and accountability in AI-assisted development Existing approaches typically treat AI agents as monolithic entities with uniform permissions, leading to: - Difficulty in enforcing review workflows - Limited ability to implement separation of duties - Challenges in maintaining audit trails - Increased risk of unauthorized changes ## Decision Implement a dual-role governance model with two distinct roles: ### ANTIGRAVITY Role (Planning) - **Purpose**: Architectural planning and design definition - **Permissions**: Read-only access to codebase and documentation - **Capabilities**: Create and modify plans, analyze existing code, define requirements - **Limitations**: Cannot execute code changes or modify files ### WINDSURF Role (Execution) - **Purpose**: Implementation of approved plans - **Permissions**: Write access constrained by approved plans - **Capabilities**: Execute file modifications, update code, implement approved changes - **Limitations**: Cannot create new plans or modify existing plan requirements ## Rationale ### Security Benefits - **Separation of Duties**: Prevents single-point compromise scenarios - **Mandatory Review**: Ensures all changes go through planning phase - **Least Privilege**: Each role has only necessary permissions - **Audit Trail**: Clear separation between planning and execution activities ### Operational Benefits - **Workflow Enforcement**: Natural enforcement of review processes - **Quality Assurance**: Planning phase enables thorough review before execution - **Accountability**: Clear responsibility assignment for each phase - **Scalability**: Model scales with team size and complexity ### Compliance Benefits - **Regulatory Alignment**: Aligns with compliance requirements for separation of duties - **Audit Requirements**: Provides clear audit trail for all changes - **Documentation**: Automatic documentation of decision processes - **Risk Management**: Reduces risk of unauthorized or malicious changes ## Alternatives Considered ### Single Role with Granular Permissions **Pros**: Simpler implementation, easier to understand **Cons**: Limited separation of duties, higher risk profile, difficult to enforce workflows ### Multi-Role Model (3+ roles) **Pros**: More granular control, specialized roles **Cons**: Increased complexity, higher cognitive load, potential for role confusion ### Time-Based Access Controls **Pros**: Dynamic permission management **Cons**: Complex to implement, potential for timing attacks, difficult to audit ### External Workflow Integration **Pros**: Leverages existing workflow systems **Cons**: External dependencies, integration complexity, potential for bypass ## Consequences ### Positive Consequences - **Enhanced Security**: Significant improvement in security posture - **Clear Workflows**: Natural enforcement of review and approval processes - **Auditability**: Comprehensive audit trail for all development activities - **Scalability**: Model supports enterprise-scale deployment ### Negative Consequences - **Complexity**: Increased system complexity compared to single-role models - **Learning Curve**: Requires users to understand role-based workflows - **Implementation Overhead**: Additional development and maintenance effort - **Integration Requirements**: May require integration with existing identity systems ### Neutral Consequences - **Performance**: Minimal impact on system performance - **Compatibility**: Requires compatible MCP client implementations - **Migration**: Existing deployments require migration to new model ## Implementation Notes ### Technical Implementation - Role detection through session initialization parameters - Dynamic tool manifestation based on active role - Role-specific metadata collection for audit trails - Plan-based authorization enforcement for execution role ### Security Considerations - Role switching requires explicit session reinitialization - Plan validation prevents unauthorized execution - Comprehensive logging of all role-based activities - Cryptographic verification of role authenticity ### Integration Points - MCP protocol extensions for role management - Integration with enterprise identity providers - Compatibility with existing development workflows - Support for custom role definitions in enterprise deployments ### Migration Strategy - Gradual rollout with backward compatibility - Migration utilities for existing deployments - Training materials for role-based workflows - Support for hybrid deployments during transition ## Related Decisions - [ADR-002: Plan-Based Authorization System](./002-plan-based-authorization.md) - [ADR-005: Role-Based Access Control](./005-role-based-access-control.md) - [ADR-003: Cryptographic Audit Logging](./003-cryptographic-audit-logging.md) --- **Decision Date**: 2026-01-19 **Decision Maker**: ATLAS-GATE MCP Architecture Team **Review Date**: 2026-04-19 **Status**: Accepted and Implemented