Files
gui-yue 1baf1aca5a Follow up PR #265: refine chapters, diagrams, and add S20 (#283)
* feat: s01-s14 docs quality overhaul — tool pipeline, single-agent, knowledge & resilience

Rewrite code.py and README (zh/en/ja) for s01-s14, each chapter building
incrementally on the previous. Key fixes across chapters:

- s01-s04: agent loop, tool dispatch, permission pipeline, hooks
- s05-s08: todo write, subagent, skill loading, context compact
- s09-s11: memory system, system prompt assembly, error recovery
- s12-s14: task graph, background tasks, cron scheduler

All chapters CC source-verified. Code inherits fixes forward (PROMPT_SECTIONS,
json.dumps cache, real-state context, can_start dep protection, etc.).

* feat: s15-s19 docs quality overhaul — multi-agent platform: teams, protocols, autonomy, worktree, MCP tools

Rewrite code.py and README (zh/en/ja) for s15-s19, the multi-agent platform
chapters. Each chapter inherits all previous fixes and adds one mechanism:

- s15: agent teams (TeamCreate, teammate threads, shared task list)
- s16: team protocols (plan approval, shutdown handshake, consume_inbox)
- s17: autonomous agents (idle polling, auto-claim, consume_lead_inbox)
- s18: worktree isolation (git worktree, bind_task, cwd switching, safety)
- s19: MCP tools (MCPClient, normalize_mcp_name, assemble_tool_pool, no cache)

All appendix source code references verified against CC source. Config priority
corrected: claude.ai < plugin < user < project < local.

* fix: 5 regressions across s05-s19 — glob safety, todo validation, memory extraction, protocol types, dep crash

- s05-s09: glob results now filter with is_relative_to(WORKDIR) (inherited from s02)
- s06-s08: todo_write validates content/status required fields (inherited from s05)
- s09: extract_memories uses pre-compression snapshot instead of compacted messages
- s16: submit_plan docstring clarifies protocol-only (not code-level gate)
- s17-s19: match_response restores type mismatch validation (from s16)
- s17-s19: claim_task deps list handles missing dep files without crashing

* fix: s12 Todo V2 logic reversal, s14/s15 cron range validation, s18/s19 worktree name validation

- s12 README (zh/en/ja): fix Todo V2 direction — interactive defaults to Task,
  non-interactive/SDK defaults to TodoWrite. Fix env var name to
  CLAUDE_CODE_ENABLE_TASKS (not TODO_V2).
- s14/s15: add _validate_cron_field with per-field range checks (minute 0-59,
  hour 0-23, dom 1-31, month 1-12, dow 0-6), step > 0, range lo <= hi.
  Replace old try/except validation that only caught exceptions.
- s18/s19: add validate_worktree_name() to remove_worktree and keep_worktree,
  not just create_worktree.

* fix: align s16-s19 teaching tool consistency

* fix pr265 chapter diagrams

* Add comprehensive s20 harness chapter

* Fix chapter smoke test regressions

* Clarify README tutorial track transition

---------

Co-authored-by: Haoran <bill-billion@outlook.com>
2026-05-20 21:45:38 +08:00

233 lines
9.5 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# s03: Permission — 执行前做权限判断
[中文](README.md) · [English](README.en.md) · [日本語](README.ja.md)
s01 → s02 → `s03` → [s04](../s04_hooks/) → s05 → ... → s20
> *"工具执行前先做权限判断"* — 权限管线决定哪些操作需要审批。
>
> **Harness 层**: 权限 — 在工具执行前加一道门。
---
## 问题
s02 的 Agent 有 5 个工具。file tools 受 `safe_path` 保护,但 bash 不受限制。让它"清理一下项目",可能执行 `rm -rf /`
安全不能靠信任模型,要靠代码——在工具执行之前做判断。
---
## 解决方案
![Permission Overview](images/permission-overview.svg)
s02 的循环完全保留。唯一的变动在工具执行前插入 `check_permission()`——每个工具调用经过三道闸门,顺序固定:硬拒绝优先,软询问次之,都没命中就放行。
三道闸门对应三种决策:
| 闸门 | 作用 | 命中后 |
|------|------|--------|
| 1. 拒绝列表 | 永远禁止的操作(`rm -rf /``sudo` | 直接拒绝,不执行 |
| 2. 规则匹配 | 取决于上下文的操作(写工作区外、`rm` 文件) | 交给闸门 3 |
| 3. 用户审批 | 闸门 2 命中后,暂停等用户确认 | 用户决定允许或拒绝 |
三道都没命中 → 直接执行。大部分日常操作走这条路。
---
## 工作原理
![Permission Pipeline](images/permission-pipeline.svg)
**闸门 1**:一张硬拒绝表,先查,命中就返回阻止信息。(教学示意:简单字符串匹配不是可靠安全机制,命令变体和 shell 展开可能绕过。CC 的做法见附录。)
```python
DENY_LIST = [
"rm -rf /", "sudo", "shutdown", "reboot",
"mkfs", "dd if=", "> /dev/sda",
]
def check_deny_list(command: str) -> str | None:
for pattern in DENY_LIST:
if pattern in command:
return f"Blocked: '{pattern}' is on the deny list"
return None
```
**闸门 2**:规则匹配——描述"什么时候需要问用户"。每条规则指定工具和检查条件。
```python
PERMISSION_RULES = [
{
"tools": ["write_file", "edit_file"],
"check": lambda args: not (WORKDIR / args.get("path", "")).resolve().is_relative_to(WORKDIR),
"message": "Writing outside workspace",
},
{
"tools": ["bash"],
"check": lambda args: any(kw in args.get("command", "") for kw in ["rm ", "> /etc/", "chmod 777"]),
"message": "Potentially destructive command",
},
]
def check_rules(tool_name: str, args: dict) -> str | None:
for rule in PERMISSION_RULES:
if tool_name in rule["tools"] and rule["check"](args):
return rule["message"]
return None
```
**闸门 3**:规则命中后,暂停等用户输入。
```python
def ask_user(tool_name: str, args: dict, reason: str) -> str:
print(f"\n{reason}")
print(f" Tool: {tool_name}({args})")
choice = input(" Allow? [y/N] ").strip().lower()
return "allow" if choice in ("y", "yes") else "deny"
```
**三道闸门串在一起**,插在工具执行之前:
```python
def check_permission(block) -> bool:
# 闸门 1: 硬拒绝
if block.name == "bash":
reason = check_deny_list(block.input.get("command", ""))
if reason:
print(f"\n{reason}")
return False
# 闸门 2 + 3: 规则匹配 → 用户审批
reason = check_rules(block.name, block.input)
if reason:
decision = ask_user(block.name, block.input, reason)
if decision == "deny":
return False
return True
# 在 agent_loop 中——s02 的循环只加了一行:
for block in response.content:
if block.type == "tool_use":
if not check_permission(block): # ← 新增
results.append({... "content": "Permission denied."})
continue
output = TOOL_HANDLERS[block.name](**block.input) # s02 原有
results.append(...)
```
---
## 相对 s02 的变更
| 组件 | 之前 (s02) | 之后 (s03) |
|------|-----------|-----------|
| 安全模型 | 无(信任模型) | 三道闸门权限管线 |
| 新函数 | — | check_deny_list, check_rules, ask_user, check_permission |
| 循环 | 直接执行所有工具 | 执行前插入 check_permission() |
---
## 试一下
```sh
cd learn-claude-code
python s03_permission/code.py
```
试试这些 prompt
1. `Create a file called test.txt in the current directory`(应该直接通过)
2. `Delete all temporary files in /tmp`bash + rm 会触发闸门 2
3. `What files are in the current directory?`(只读,全部通过)
4. `Try to write a file to /etc/something`(写工作区外,触发闸门 2
观察重点:哪些操作直接通过?哪些需要你确认?哪些被直接拒绝?
---
## 接下来
权限检查做了——但每次都在循环里硬编码 `check_permission()`。如果我想在每次工具执行前后加日志?如果想在某些操作后自动触发 git commit这些扩展逻辑散落在 loop 里,循环很快就会膨胀。
s04 Hooks → 给循环加钩子,扩展逻辑挂在钩子上,循环保持干净。
<details>
<summary>深入 CC 源码</summary>
> 以下基于 CC 源码 `types/permissions.ts`、`utils/permissions/permissions.ts`、`toolExecution.ts`、`utils/permissions/yoloClassifier.ts`、`tools/AgentTool/forkSubagent.ts` 的核查。
### 一、PermissionResult不是 3 种,是 4 种
教学版的三道闸门deny → ask → allow和 CC 不完全对应。CC 的 `PermissionResult` 有 4 个 behavior`types/permissions.ts:241-266`
| behavior | 含义 | 教学版对应 |
|----------|------|-----------|
| `allow` | 直接允许 | 闸门 3 通过 |
| `deny` | 直接拒绝 | 闸门 1 命中 |
| `ask` | 弹出对话框问用户 | 闸门 2 命中 |
| `passthrough` | 工具不表态,交给通用管线决定 | 教学版无 |
### 二、生产版的验证阶段
CC 的工具调用不是经过三道闸门,而是经过多个阶段,分布在 `checkPermissionsAndCallTool()``toolExecution.ts:599-1745`、hooks、`hasPermissionsToUseToolInner()``utils/permissions/permissions.ts:1158-1310`)和 classifier 逻辑里:
1. **Zod schema 验证**`toolExecution.ts:614-680`)— 参数类型检查
2. **validateInput()**`toolExecution.ts:682-733`)— 工具级语义验证
3. **backfillObservableInput()**`toolExecution.ts:784`)— 补全遗留字段
4. **PreToolUse hooks**`toolExecution.ts:800-862`)— 钩子可以返回 allow/deny/ask
5. **resolveHookPermissionDecision()**`toolExecution.ts:921-931`)— 协调钩子+管线决策
6. **hasPermissionsToUseToolInner()**`permissions.ts:1158-1310`)— 多层规则检查:
- 整个工具被 deny rule 禁用 → `deny`
- 整个工具被 ask rule 标记 → `ask`
- `tool.checkPermissions()` 工具自己的判断
- 工具自己返回 deny → `deny`
- `requiresUserInteraction()``ask`
- 内容相关的 ask 规则 → `ask`(不可绕过)
- 安全检查违规 → `ask`(不可绕过)
- bypassPermissions 模式 → `allow`
- 整个工具被 allow rule 放行 → `allow`
- passthrough → 转为 `ask`
### 三、拒绝列表:不是一个文件,是 8 个来源
CC 没有单一的 deny list。权限规则来自 8 个来源(`types/permissions.ts:54-62`
| 来源 | 配置位置 |
|------|---------|
| `userSettings` | `~/.claude/settings.json` |
| `projectSettings` | `.claude/settings.json` |
| `localSettings` | `settings.local.json` |
| `flagSettings` | Feature flags |
| `policySettings` | 企业管理策略 |
| `cliArg` | `--allowedTools` / `--deniedTools` |
| `command` | 内联命令 |
| `session` | 会话内临时授权 |
每条规则格式:`{ toolName: "Bash", ruleBehavior: "deny", ruleContent: "npm publish:*" }`。多个来源的规则合并高优先级来源覆盖低优先级从低到高user < project < local < flag < policy加上 cliArg、command、session
### 四、isDestructive() 是什么
CC 中 `isDestructive``Tool.ts:405-406`**纯粹是 UI 展示用的**——在工具列表里显示 `[destructive]` 标签。它不参与权限决策。默认所有工具都返回 `false`。只有 ExitWorktreeremove 时)和 MCP 工具(依赖 `annotations.destructiveHint`)覆写了它。
### 五、YoloClassifier自动审批
CC 的 auto 模式下,不会每次都弹对话框。`classifyYoloAction``utils/permissions/yoloClassifier.ts:1012`)把工具调用 + 对话上下文发给一个分类器 LLM 判断是否安全。先尝试 acceptEdits 模式模拟(`permissions.ts:620-656`,如果 acceptEdits 允许 → 直接批准),再查安全工具白名单(`permissions.ts:658-686`),最后才调分类器。分类器连续拒绝太多次 → 回退到人工审批。
### 六、权限冒泡
子 Agent通过 AgentTool fork 出来的)的 `permissionMode` 设为 `'bubble'``forkSubagent.ts:50`)。意思是权限弹窗**冒泡到父 Agent 的终端**,而不是在子 Agent 里静默拒绝。Bash 分类器在这个过程中继续跑——给权限对话框显示的同时在后台判断是否可以自动批准。
### 教学版的简化是刻意的
- 多阶段管线 → 3 道闸门:理解门槛大幅降低
- 8 个规则来源 → 1 个本地 DENY_LIST概念量可控
- isDestructive → 忽略(教学版没有 UI 层CC 里它也不参与权限决策)
- YoloClassifier → 省略(依赖于额外的 LLM 调用和遥测系统)
- 权限冒泡 → 省略s15 才涉及多 Agent
</details>
<!-- translation-sync: zh@v1, en@v1, ja@v1 -->