Skip to main content
Glama

🛡️ Deterministic Runtime OS (DROS) - VajraClaw Hacker Edition

DROS: The Execution Governance Standard for Agentic AI

License: Commercial Patent Status Academic Paper Specification: RFC-010

English | 繁體中文


🛑 "If runtime needs intelligence, the system is already broken."

Prompt Engineering is dead when it comes to enterprise security. No matter how complex your System Prompt is, Jailbreaks and Prompt Injections will find a way through. DROS is NOT a prompt wrapper. It is the Execution Governance Standard. We move intelligence to compile-time and enforce deterministic rules via an $O(1)$ microsecond binary kernel.


💡 For the latest pricing and tiers, please refer to the Official Website (dr-os.io).

Feature / 6-Pillar Dimension

🟢 Hacker / Community (Non-Commercial)

🔵 Startup

🟣 Enterprise

👑 Sovereign

Target Audience

Individual Devs / Local Multi-Agent (Non-Commercial)

10~50 Dev Startup Teams

Enterprises / Listed Co.

Banking / Defense / Gov

Machine UUID Limit

1 UUID

3 UUIDs

15 UUIDs

Unlimited

Concurrent Agents

5 Concurrent Agents

30 Agents

450 Agents

Unlimited (Swarm)

Pillar 1: Principal (W3C DID)

Native W3C did:key

3-Tier PKI DIT

Cross-Domain BEC Issuance

✅ Hardware Dongle

Pillar 2: Authorization (Deterministic)

AST Bitmap Matching

Zero-Heap Bitmaps

Custom Capability Vector

✅ Multi-Dim Bitmap Matrix

Pillar 3: Tool Bound (Syscall Gate)

C-ABI / HTTP Fuse (<1μs)

26.1μs In-Band Fuse

Sub-500ns Thread Panic

✅ Hardware Physical Fusing

Pillar 4: Policy Gate (Dynamic Control)

❌ Static Rules Only

Dynamic PII Masking

HITL Multi-Sig + ZKP

✅ Military Gate Matrix

Pillar 5: Audit Log (Non-Repudiation)

Ed25519 Signed JSON

Ed25519 Signatures

SHA-256 Merkle Tree

✅ Forensic Compliance Audit Lineage

Pillar 6: Expiry/Revocation (<1μs)

❌ Gateway Restart

🟡 15-min BEC Expiry

<1μs RCU Pointer Swap

✅ Distributed Mesh Revoke

RFC-010 Open Passport Standard

Full Local Issuance

Multi-Role DIT Sign

GuardVM Validation

✅ 3-Tier Sign Chain

Add-On Compliance Packages

❌ Not Eligible

💡 Eligible for Add-Ons

Eligible for Add-Ons

✅ Fully Included

Deployment Target

Local PC / Docker Gateway

VM / NAS Docker

K8s / GKE / Cluster

Air-Gapped / FPGA


🧩 Agent Engineering & Governance Patterns (DROS AP Series)

Tired of autonomous AI agents producing monolithic slop, fake mocks (return True / pass), or running destructive shell mutations behind your back?
VajraClaw Hacker Edition ships natively with DROS Application Governance Patterns and Zero-Dependency Verification Tooling:

Pattern ID

Problem & Title

Governance Invariant

Included Tool

AP-001

Task Modularization via Governance BoundariesCode size is the wrong metric; use GBAI to prevent over-engineering and privilege mixing.

GBAI

tools/dros_verify.py

AP-002

Anti-Stub & Sham Implementation DetectionCatching AI minimal-effort evasions (pass, empty stubs, assert True) before execution.

5-Stage Capability Lifecycle

tools/dros_verify.py

👉 Explore Full Pattern Catalog (AP-001 ~ AP-008) →

# Verify your agent scripts in 0.1s locally
python tools/dros_verify.py my_agent_script.py

Related MCP server: Sentinel Gateway

🚀 Multi-Scenario Deployment & Setup Guide

🌟 Scenario A: DSH (DeepSeek Harness) Sandbox Users

  1. Start the DROS Docker Gateway:

    docker run -d -p 8080:8080 --name dros-gateway dros/hacker-gateway:v1.0.0
  2. Install DROS Community Plugin in DSH:

    dsh plugin --profile web add dsh-plugin-dros
  3. Enjoy Zero-Friction Protection: DSH Agents are immediately bound to microsecond $O(1)$ tool interception.


💻 Scenario B: Antigravity 2.0 / Claude Desktop / Cursor Developers (WebMCP Protocol & Local Execution Governance)

DROS Hacker Edition natively includes the WebMCP / MCP (Model Context Protocol) Execution Governance Layer. You can choose between "Zero-Dependency Native Stdio Proxy Gate" and "Docker HTTP Gateway":

No Docker required. Initialize dros.personal.config.json directly in your workspace to enforce DWGR-8 execution boundaries (blocking directory traversal, destructive SQL injection, spending limits):

  1. Initialize local governance configuration:

    npx @dros/personal init
    # Or copy the included template: dros.personal.config.json
  2. Mount in Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json) or Cursor / Antigravity:

    {
      "mcpServers": {
        "filesystem-governed": {
          "command": "npx",
          "args": ["-y", "@dros/personal", "gate", "--tool", "filesystem", "--", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem", "E:\\projects"]
        }
      }
    }
  3. Tamper-Evident Local Audit Chain: All permitted and blocked tool calls are automatically hashed into a DWGR-8 R6-compliant SHA-256 linear chain.

Method 2: Containerized Mode (Docker HTTP Gateway)

Add the DROS Gateway to your mcp_settings.json / Claude Config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "dros-governance": {
      "url": "http://localhost:8080/mcp",
      "transport": "http"
    }
  }
}

🐍 Scenario C: Native Python / LangChain / AutoGen Developers

from integrations.vajraclaw.runtime import VajraClaw

vc = VajraClaw("demo_policy.yaml")
decision = vc.evaluate("execute_payment", {"amount": 500})
if not decision:
    raise PermissionError(f"Blocked by DROS: {decision.reason}")

📜 Technical Whitepapers & Academic DOI Citations

The DROS deterministic runtime governance architecture is grounded in rigorous scientific epistemology. The complete series of technical papers has achieved permanent, immutable DOI registration via Zenodo:

🧭 Master Research Overview & Falsification Manifesto


🏹 The 5-Paper Technical Program

  1. 🏛️ Paper 1: DROS-6P (Governance Specification Layer ── Enterprise AI Trust Boundaries)

  2. 🛡️ Paper 2: DROS 4-Layer (Implementation Layer ── Defense-in-Depth Governance)

  3. ⚙️ Paper 3: DROS-PGM (Kernel Control Layer ── Physical Guard Module & Non-Repudiable Attribution)

  4. 📱 Paper 4: Post-Compromise Mobile (Digital System Empirical Validation ── Submitted to IEEE TMC)

  5. 🛸 Paper 5: Post-Compromise Physical AI / UAV (Cyber-Physical Empirical Validation ── Submitted to IEEE TAES)


Open Evaluation & Falsification Sandbox: DROS-VEP Lite (GitHub) ── Reproduce RFC-001 Threat Models and 4-Phase Lifecycle Tests.


🧪 Empirical Test Suite & Community Verification Directory

To enable open-source developers and security researchers to independently verify Hacker Edition defensive invariants, this section details the standardized benchmark testbed, 5-framework integration test procedures, high-risk containment vectors, and architectural boundaries:

1. Testbed Specifications

  • Host Operating System: Ubuntu Linux 22.04 LTS (Kernel 5.15.0-190-generic x86_64) / Windows 11 Enterprise

  • CPU Hardware: Intel Xeon E3-1265L v3 @ 2.50GHz / Core i7-12700

  • Container Runtime: Docker Engine 26.1.0 / Docker Compose v2.27.0

  • Toolchain & Compilers: GCC 11.4.0 (-O2), Rust 1.78.0 (opt-level=3, lto=true, exporting dros_core_rs.dll / .so)

  • Verification Harness: dros_test_pipeline.py, tools/stress_test.py

2. Latency Measurement Methodology

  • Measurement Pathway: Client issues HTTP/MCP Tool-Call $\to$ Docker Gateway receives request $\to$ In-Memory Bitmask lookup $\to$ Returns decision JSON frame (Full Round-Trip Time).

  • Statistical Confidence: Continuous 24-hour soak test ($N = 160,611$ requests), P50 = 26.21μs, P95 = 31.05μs, P99 = 34.80μs, maximum jitter $< 85\mu\text{s}$.

3. End-to-End Test Matrix Across 5 Major Agent Ecosystems

Agent Framework

Integration Protocol / Mode

Test Vector & Payload

Verification Result & Status

Anthropic Claude Code / Desktop

MCP (Model Context Protocol)

High-risk tool invocation intercepted

PASS (MCP Error 403: Capability Denied)

Cursor IDE / VS Code Agent

Terminal Evaluation Hook

Agent attempts rm -rf /

PASS (Exit 1: Blocked by Vajra Policy)

OpenAI SDK / LangChain

3-Line Python Wrapper

Transaction amount exceeds $1,000 threshold

PASS (PermissionError: Threshold Exceeded)

CrewAI / AutoGen

Multi-Agent W3C DID Delegation

Unauthorized principal attempts .env read

PASS (HTTP 403: Role Invariant Broken)

DeepSeek Harness (DSH)

Native Plugin (dsh-dros-vajraclaw)

High-concurrency toolchains & compliance audit

PASS (All Invariants Passed, Zero Leak)

4. High-Risk Containment Test Cases

Case ID

Compromised Agent Action / Payload

DROS Enforcement Action

Empirical Result & Audit Log

HC-01

rm -rf / or rmdir /s /q C:\

Static Pattern Failsafe

PASS: Blocked, logged as [DENY_WIPE_COMMAND]

HC-02

cat .env or reading id_rsa / secret keys

Path Boundary Failsafe

PASS: Blocked, logged as [DENY_SECRET_PATH_ACCESS]

HC-03

execute_payment({"amount": 5000})

Value Threshold Failsafe

PASS: Blocked, logged as [DENY_THRESHOLD_EXCEEDED]

HC-04

Any tool not declared in demo_policy.yaml

Default Fail-Closed Policy

PASS: Blocked, logged as [DENY_NOT_WHITELISTED]

5. Honest Architectural Boundaries

  • Hacker Edition Scope: Focused exclusively on Protocol Gateway Governance (MCP / REST Ingress/Egress), offering zero-overhead compatibility with standard agent frameworks.

  • Out-of-Scope Notice: In-process direct memory mutations or local libc invocations bypassing network protocols are out-of-scope for the Hacker gateway. For Linux kernel-level Seccomp-BPF / Raw Syscall physical enforcement and K8s high availability, refer to Enterprise Edition.


🏛️ Official Organization & Contact Information


⚖️ Licensing & Compliance

  • Micro-Kernel Engine: Licensed under Commercial & Patent Protections.

  • Patent Notice: Protected under U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 64/111,973 (Patent Pending).

  • Academic Citation: Based on IEEE Paper DROS-6P and RFC-010 Open Agent Passport Standard.


DROS Commercial Strategy Committee ── Tiered Pricing, Flywheel Locked, Add-On Value Premium. 💎🛡️⚙️

Available Tools

1 tool
dros_evaluateC

Deterministic in-band execution guardrail evaluating actions in sub-microsecond latency.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capabilityYes
parametersNo

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'sub-microsecond latency', which are useful behavioral traits, but it does not explain side effects, whether the tool blocks/allows execution, return values, or failure modes. The key behavior—what happens with the evaluation result—is left unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy—it is concise in the sense of being short. However, it under-specifies the tool so severely that the brevity is more a symptom of incompleteness than effective conciseness. It is not bloated, but it doesn't earn its place as a useful summary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry a heavy burden. It gives only a vague functional hint and a couple of non-functional attributes, but fails to describe inputs, outputs, side effects, or evaluation semantics. The tool is not adequately contextualized for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain or even mention the parameters 'capability' or 'parameters'. There is no indication of what values 'capability' accepts or what structure 'parameters' should follow. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses vague, jargon-heavy language ('in-band execution guardrail', 'evaluating actions') without clarifying concretely what the tool does. The verb 'evaluating' and resource 'actions' are generic, and the purpose remains ambiguous—it is not obvious what action is evaluated, how, or for what decision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool. With no sibling tools listed, there are no alternatives to contrast against, but the description also lacks any context about the intended invocation scenario or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and vague description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observeddros_evaluate

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose is clearly defined as a deterministic execution guardrail.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'dros_evaluate' uses a clear verb_noun style. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied.

Tool Count5/5

The server has a narrowly scoped purpose, acting as a single guardrail evaluation function. One tool fully serves that purpose without unnecessary extras.

Completeness5/5

For its stated domain of evaluating actions as a guardrail, the single tool covers the necessary functionality completely. There are no obvious missing operations within this narrow scope.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A governance proxy for AI tools — every MCP/agent tool call is policy-gated, secret-redacted, and written to a hash-chained, offline-verifiable audit trail.
    13
    MIT
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP zero-trust gateway that sits in front of every internal MCP server, detects tool-poisoning/metadata drift in real time, and maintains a cryptographic provenance ledger of every agent tool call.
    20
    2 npm
    ISC
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Governed MCP gateway that lets AI agents call tools with policy enforcement, prompt-injection screening, a kill-switch, and tamper-evident signed audit logs.
    Apache 2.0