Founder & CEO of Netsujo. Building trustworthy AI agent systems, with a focus on task boundaries, verification, and production reliability. Creator of Agent Role Contracts (ARC).
I’d break the stale-snapshot binding first. Keep the page and site identity constant, issue a valid list_elements snapshot, then change the snapshot state and attempt a call bound to the old element id. The expected result is a fail-closed freshness rejection.
I’d test page/site identity separately as the next negative case. That keeps the failure modes independent: first freshness/TOCTOU, then destination identity. A positive control would use the current snapshot and matching page/site identity.
It makes sense that Andrius decides what runner evidence can be shared. A sanitized field-level transcript or schema would already be useful; no internal or sensitive output is needed.
Auten gives your AI agent hands: it clicks, types and reads a real screen on your computer (Mac/Windows/Linux) and Android phone (beta). Works with any MCP client.
That order makes sense: freshness first with identity held constant, then identity alone, so a rejection points at exactly one binding.
I've passed it to Andrius in that shape, a sanitized field-level schema with a stale-id negative case and a current-snapshot positive control, and no internal output. Thanks for spelling it out this clearly.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I’d break the stale-snapshot binding first. Keep the page and site identity constant, issue a valid
list_elementssnapshot, then change the snapshot state and attempt a call bound to the old element id. The expected result is a fail-closed freshness rejection.I’d test page/site identity separately as the next negative case. That keeps the failure modes independent: first freshness/TOCTOU, then destination identity. A positive control would use the current snapshot and matching page/site identity.
It makes sense that Andrius decides what runner evidence can be shared. A sanitized field-level transcript or schema would already be useful; no internal or sensitive output is needed.
That order makes sense: freshness first with identity held constant, then identity alone, so a rejection points at exactly one binding.
I've passed it to Andrius in that shape, a sanitized field-level schema with a stale-id negative case and a current-snapshot positive control, and no internal output. Thanks for spelling it out this clearly.