IntentBound: Purpose-aware authorization for autonomous AI agents

news.ycombinator.com

1–2 of 2 posts

IntentBound: Purpose-aware authorization for autonomous AI agents

Post by Grokipaedia » Mon, Feb 02, 2026, 1:20 AM UTC

I built the first working implementation of Intent-Bound Authorization (IBA) - runtime enforcement that validates every AI agent action against declared human intent.

The problem: Traditional auth (OAuth, RBAC) asks "who can do what" but never asks "why are you doing this?" When AI agents can plan and pivot autonomously, this becomes a $3.8B problem (2024 breach total).

IBA relocates the trust boundary from access grant to execution - agents are trusted only while they can justify actions against explicit intent.

Live demo: https://www.grokipaedia.com/Demo.html (Watch it block a HIPAA violation in 3.7ms)

Working code: https://github.com/Grokipaedia/Intent-Bound

Technical site: https://www.grokipaedia.com

Key insight: Autonomous systems should not be trusted because they have permission - only because they can continuously justify their actions against declared intent.

Would have prevented Wormhole ($600M), plus the entire class of "legitimate credentials, malicious intent" attacks.

Integrates with Anthropic MCP, Azure OpenAI, AWS Bedrock.

Happy to discuss the architecture or answer questions about implementation.

Re: IntentBound: Purpose-aware authorization for autonomous AI agents

Post by Grokipaedia » Mon, Feb 02, 2026, 8:54 AM UTC

"A bit more context on why I took this approach:

Most current 'Agent Safety' layers rely on LLM-based supervisors (a 'Judge' agent). The flaw is that you're using a probabilistic tool to secure another probabilistic tool. If the supervisor hallucinations, the system fails.

IBA moves the enforcement into the cryptographic handshake. By hashing the 'Intent' at the moment of human initiation and requiring the agent to generate a 'Proof of Alignment' payload for every tool-call, we’re creating a deterministic gate.

Even if an agent has a valid API key for a database, if the proposed SQL query doesn’t mathematically derive from the signed Intent Hash, the gateway terminates the connection before the DB is even touched.

I’m particularly interested in how this community views the latency trade-off. We’re seeing sub-5ms overhead on the validation, which seems negligible for high-stakes enterprise workflows (Finance/Healthcare), but I'm curious if anyone sees a path to making this 'zero-knowledge' so the gateway doesn't even need to see the raw intent data?"

Post reply on HN