Issue Station
Sign In
Tools hereToolbox

openclaw - ✅(Solved) Fix [RFC] Scoped plugin commands, trusted command ownership, and continuation [1 pull requests, 1 comments, 1 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#71735•Fetched 2026-04-26 05:09:05
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
1
Timeline
2
Reactions
0
Author
100yenadmin100yenadmin
Participants
100yenadmin100yenadmin
Timeline (top)
commented ×1cross-referenced ×1

Extend plugin commands with declarative gateway scopes, trusted command-root ownership, and a continueAgent result for commands that should resume an agent run after handling.

This is proposed SDK surface, not currently implemented API.

Error Message

  • Error behavior for insufficient scopes, disabled plugins, and untrusted reserved-root claims.

Root Cause

Plan Mode /plan accept, /plan revise, and /plan answer must patch plugin state, enqueue a continuation, and resume the agent. Current plugin commands can run handlers, but they do not declare host-enforced scopes and they default to stopping command handling.

The same primitive applies to deploy approvals, review gates, incident/ticket workflows, budget overrides, memory/context actions, workspace policy grants, and channel-specific command adapters.

Fix Action

Fix / Workaround

Plan Mode /plan accept, /plan revise, and /plan answer must patch plugin state, enqueue a continuation, and resume the agent. Current plugin commands can run handlers, but they do not declare host-enforced scopes and they default to stopping command handling.

PR fix notes

PR #71731: docs: add Plan Mode plugin host hook RFC

Description (problem / solution / changelog)

Summary

This PR is a maintainer RFC package for making Plan Mode a first-class bundled plugin without merging the large host patch from #71676.

  • Problem: #71676 proves Plan Mode behavior, but it embeds the feature across session state, gateway patching, agent turn preparation, pending injections, tool policy, commands, Control UI, agent events, scheduler/cron, heartbeat prompts, docs, QA, and channel flows.
  • Why it matters: maintainers prefer a plugin path. A plugin port cannot reach 100% parity unless OpenClaw first exposes generic host seams in the plugin SDK.
  • What changed: added an RFC packet, public index page, six issue-sized RFC threads, current-SDK gap research, reusable plugin matrices, a #71676 entry-point coverage map, and fixture-test expectations for a future implementation PR.
  • What did NOT change: this PR intentionally does not implement hooks, Plan Mode behavior, prompts, tools, UI cards, session fields, scheduler changes, or runtime SDK APIs.

RFC Status Warning

This is proposed SDK design, not implemented SDK reference. The docs now include explicit warning callouts, and the public page has been moved out of SDK reference into a dedicated Plugin design RFCs nav group.

RFC Decision Threads

  • #71732 — Plugin session extensions and patch actions
  • #71733 — Durable next-turn injections and agent turn preparation hooks
  • #71734 — Trusted tool policy stage and plugin tool metadata
  • #71735 — Scoped plugin commands, trusted command ownership, and continuation
  • #71736 — Control UI plugin contribution slots
  • #71737 — Agent events, run context, scheduler lifecycle, and heartbeat contributions

The issue bodies have been expanded so each thread includes: proposed/not-implemented status, current SDK surface, missing host seam, Plan Mode parity use, reusable non-Plan plugin examples, decisions needed, and fixture acceptance criteria.

RFC Contents

The full RFC packet covers:

  • current SDK research against existing hooks, using #71427 as the comparison bar
  • reusable SDK capability matrix across public SDK, trusted/bundled SDK, gateway protocol, UI descriptors, runner boundary, lifecycle cleanup, and fixture tests
  • plugin archetype matrix for approval workflows, deploy/release, budget guards, memory/context, review/CI, incidents/tickets, channel integrations, workspace policy, telemetry/exporters, and long-running jobs
  • #71676 entry-point coverage map for Plan Mode parity
  • per-hook TypeScript-shaped API sketches
  • expected host files for each implementation slice
  • authorization, trust-tier, disablement, cleanup, and failure semantics
  • fixture-plugin acceptance tests for the future hook implementation PR
  • Plan Mode migration sequence and parity checklist

Change Type

  • Bug fix
  • Feature
  • Refactor required for the fix
  • Docs
  • Security hardening
  • Chore/infra

Scope

  • Gateway / orchestration
  • Skills / tool execution
  • Auth / tokens
  • Memory / storage
  • Integrations
  • API / contracts
  • UI / DX
  • CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

  • Related #71676
  • Related #71732
  • Related #71733
  • Related #71734
  • Related #71735
  • Related #71736
  • Related #71737
  • This PR fixes a bug or regression

Verification

Verified locally:

  • pnpm format:docs:check
  • pnpm lint:docs
  • pnpm docs:check-mdx
  • pnpm docs:check-links

Human Verification

  • Confirmed the docs nav no longer places the proposal under stable SDK reference.
  • Confirmed both docs pages warn that the named APIs are proposed, not implemented.
  • Confirmed the RFC packet includes a #71676 entry-point coverage map.
  • Confirmed all six live issue bodies are expanded beyond Plan Mode-only examples.
  • Did not run runtime Plan Mode behavior because this PR is docs/RFC-only and implements no hooks.

Compatibility / Migration

  • Backward compatible? Yes, docs-only.
  • Config/env changes? No.
  • Migration needed? No.

Risks and Mitigations

  • Risk: reviewers mistake the RFC for implemented SDK reference.
    • Mitigation: warning callouts plus Plugin design RFCs nav placement.
  • Risk: proposal appears Plan Mode-specific.
    • Mitigation: reusable SDK matrices, non-Plan plugin examples, and expanded issue bodies.
  • Risk: proposal overclaims parity.
    • Mitigation: #71676 entry-point coverage map and explicit note that actual parity requires the future hook implementation PR plus fixture tests.

Next Step After This PR

If maintainers accept the RFC direction, the next PR should implement the generic host hooks with a tiny fixture plugin. Only after that should Plan Mode itself move into a bundled plugin and be audited against #71676 for parity.

Changed files

  • docs/docs.json (modified, +4/-0)
  • docs/plan/plan-mode-plugin-host-hooks-rfc.md (added, +1289/-0)
  • docs/plugins/plan-mode-plugin-host-hooks.md (added, +492/-0)

Code Example

api.registerCommand({
  name,
  requiredScopes,
  ownership,
  handler,
});

---

return {
  message,
  continueAgent: true,
  delivery: "ephemeral",
};
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Summary

Extend plugin commands with declarative gateway scopes, trusted command-root ownership, and a continueAgent result for commands that should resume an agent run after handling.

This is proposed SDK surface, not currently implemented API.

Why this matters

Plan Mode /plan accept, /plan revise, and /plan answer must patch plugin state, enqueue a continuation, and resume the agent. Current plugin commands can run handlers, but they do not declare host-enforced scopes and they default to stopping command handling.

The same primitive applies to deploy approvals, review gates, incident/ticket workflows, budget overrides, memory/context actions, workspace policy grants, and channel-specific command adapters.

Current SDK surface

OpenClaw currently has api.registerCommand(...). Command context includes gatewayClientScopes, plugin gateway methods can declare opts.scope, duplicate plugin command registration is blocked, and built-in command roots are reserved.

Those surfaces are useful but insufficient: plugins can self-inspect scopes, but the host does not enforce command requiredScopes before the handler. There is no trusted ownership model for reserved roots and no continueAgent result that resumes an agent run after command-side state changes.

Proposed solution

Extend command registration with fields such as:

api.registerCommand({
  name,
  requiredScopes,
  ownership,
  handler,
});

Extend command results with:

return {
  message,
  continueAgent: true,
  delivery: "ephemeral",
};

Existing plugin commands should preserve current behavior: no requiredScopes means current auth behavior, and no continueAgent means do not resume the agent.

Reusable plugin examples

  • Plan Mode uses /plan accept, /plan revise, /plan answer, /plan auto on, and /plan auto off.
  • Review plugins use /review approve, /review request-changes, and /review rerun.
  • Deployment plugins use /deploy approve, /deploy pause, /rollback, and /release status.
  • Budget plugins use /budget override, /budget reset, and /budget status.
  • Incident plugins use /incident ack, /incident escalate, and /ticket close.
  • Memory plugins use /memory pin, /memory forget, and /context refresh.
  • Policy plugins use /policy grant, /policy revoke, and /policy explain.
  • Channel plugins use /telegram approve, /slack handoff, and /email summarize.

Decisions needed

  • Command scope declaration shape.
  • Reserved command ownership model: manifest, runtime, or two-phase ownership.
  • continueAgent result semantics.
  • Command discovery before plugin runtime activation.
  • Text-channel behavior for read-only vs mutating commands.
  • Error behavior for insufficient scopes, disabled plugins, and untrusted reserved-root claims.

Acceptance criteria

  • Fixture command requiring operator.approvals rejects insufficient scope before handler execution.
  • Read-only fixture command works with read scope only.
  • Command returning continueAgent: true resumes agent execution.
  • Command returning no continuation preserves current behavior.
  • Untrusted plugin cannot claim a reserved command root.
  • Text-channel command path receives the same scope and continuation semantics.

References

extent analysis

TL;DR

Extend the api.registerCommand method to include requiredScopes and ownership fields, and add a continueAgent result to command handlers to resume agent execution after handling.

Guidance

  • Review the proposed solution and existing SDK surface to understand the required changes.
  • Update the api.registerCommand method to include requiredScopes and ownership fields, as shown in the proposed solution.
  • Modify command handlers to return a continueAgent result when resuming agent execution is desired.
  • Test the updated commands with different scope and ownership scenarios to ensure correct behavior.

Example

api.registerCommand({
  name: 'plan accept',
  requiredScopes: ['operator.approvals'],
  ownership: 'trusted',
  handler: (context) => {
    // Handle command logic
    return {
      message: 'Plan accepted',
      continueAgent: true,
    };
  },
});

Notes

The proposed solution requires careful consideration of command scope declaration shape, reserved command ownership model, and continueAgent result semantics. Additionally, command discovery and error behavior for insufficient scopes and untrusted reserved-root claims need to be addressed.

Recommendation

Apply the proposed workaround by extending the api.registerCommand method and adding the continueAgent result to command handlers, as this will provide the necessary functionality for plugins to declare host-enforced scopes and resume agent execution after handling.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…
#api#ssr#installation#tensor shape#agent execution

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING