Spec Driven Development
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
Description from the maker (original English)
Pre-execution policy gate for consequential agent actions with durable trust receipts.
These three are never merged into one score: opinions, measurements and popularity are different things.
We have not written a plain-language summary for this one yet. Below are the facts we read from the registry.
Pick the AI app you use, then copy the settings.
You need
Which app do you use?
Pick your app above. We remember it, so next time the button says “Install in …”.
Works in Claude on the web, desktop and mobile:
https://api.interailabs.dev/mcpRun this in your terminal
claude mcp add --transport http ai-risk-oracle https://api.interailabs.dev/mcpPaste into .cursor/mcp.json in your project, or ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"ai-risk-oracle": {
"url": "https://api.interailabs.dev/mcp"
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
Paste into .vscode/mcp.json in your project
{
"servers": {
"ai-risk-oracle": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://api.interailabs.dev/mcp"
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
ChatGPT connects only to servers on the internet:
https://api.interailabs.dev/mcpMenu names can differ slightly by plan and over time.
Your choice stays on this device in a cookie; no account needed.
These settings are generated from the maker’s registry entry. If the README says otherwise, follow the README.
We have not read this server’s tool list yet; we check endpoints in rotation.
We check information anyone can see; we have not read the code. Checks that do not apply are left out of the count. · Checked Nov 7, 2026
The registry name was verified with the GitHub account InterAILabs, which owns the repo
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
Not checked yet; we check endpoints in rotation
Not checked yet; we check endpoints in rotation
Not checked yet; we read the tool list when we check the endpoint
Compared with every active server in this category in the registry. Stars count only when the publisher owns the repo.
It passed 1 of 1 applicable basic checks. We have not read the code. Before adding a key or token, see what access the server asks for and use a key with only the permissions you need.
The registry does not list a required key, though some servers ask you to sign in on first use.
It runs in the maker’s cloud. Connect over the internet with nothing to install, but what you send passes through the maker’s servers.
The GitHub repo last changed –, and the latest version (0.1.3-beta.1) reached the registry 2 months ago.
Apps that support MCP, such as Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and VS Code. It connects by URL, so apps that accept remote MCP servers work too, such as ChatGPT in developer mode.
In the same category: Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, Aiterm MCP
Servers in the same category from other makers, sorted by stars.
Reading a card:★ GitHub starsiThree pillars: reviews · checks · usageiUpdated = latest version published to the registryi
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.
Persistent terminals and one launcher for Claude, Codex, Grok, Cursor, and Antigravity harnesses.
Copied from the maker’s repo as written. PopNx MCP has not reviewed or endorsed it. HTML, images and scripts are removed. Links lead off this site.
Independent pre-execution decision layer for consequential agent actions.
Before an agent executes, InterAI verifies.
I’m Alejandro Bolognese, building InterAI through InterAI Labs as ongoing work on agent infrastructure, execution control, trust boundaries, and production systems.
Live proof: Action Boundary Lab · Controlled safe demo · Architecture & authority boundary · OpenAPI
InterAI sits between an autonomous agent and a consequential action. The agent proposes what it wants to do; InterAI evaluates the action in context, applies authoritative host/account constraints plus any request-scoped caller constraints, and returns a machine-readable authority decision:
proposed action
| v InterAI | +--> ALLOW +--> REVIEW_REQUIRED +--> BLOCK | v signed trust receipt
The important boundary is not merely can this principal technically perform the action? It is:
Should this specific action execute now, in this context, under this policy?
That makes InterAI complementary to authentication, permissions, spend limits, workflow rules, and domain-specific controls rather than a replacement for them.
Identity / authentication
"Who is this?" | Permissions / deterministic limits "Can this principal do this class of operation?" | InterAI "Should this exact proposed action execute in this context?" | Execution / escalation / abort
Use InterAI when an agent is about to do something with real consequences: execute a tool, move funds, update production state, approve a workflow, sign a wallet action, send an external message, or trigger another irreversible or costly operation.
For autonomous execution requests, the primary InterAI authority contract is:
recommended_action: allow, review_required, or blockpolicy_result: the authority result under the effective policypolicy_violations: explicit policy findings when applicabletrust_receipt_id: durable decision evidenceexecution_intent_digest: deterministic identifier for the exact intent evaluatedreview_required means the current agent should not execute autonomously under the current policy. Review can be handled by a supervisor agent, policy system, governance queue, wallet rule, or human operator.
For executable pilot authorization, the host constructs the trusted action envelope interai-canonical-action/v1 and the host-attested execution context interai-host-execution-context/v1. InterAI returns a CanonicalExecutionIntent (interai-canonical-execution-intent/v2), execution_intent_digest, and—only for an authenticated allow—an ExecutionAuthorization (interai-execution-authorization/v1). The host must verify the receipt, rebuild the final invocation immediately before the side effect, recompute the canonical digest, validate the authorization, and fail closed on any mismatch. A change to tool, arguments, authoritative actor, run, workspace, environment, resource/destination, or relevant policy invalidates the earlier allow and requires a new decision. review_required and block are non-authorizing.
Execution authorization is single-use and short lived: 1–300 seconds, 60 seconds by default. InterAI does not provide universal distributed replay prevention across external runtimes; the host must atomically and durably consume the authorization when that guarantee is required.
If review changes the action, it is a new proposed intent. In Pydantic AI: proposal → review/override → final validation → InterAI → exact-intent check → execute; apply ToolApproved.override_args before final validation and InterAI.
The current hosted beta also returns score, risk_level, and machine-readable signals. Those fields remain part of the current compatibility surface and are useful for diagnostics and existing integrations, but they should not be interpreted as the fundamental authority contract. The execution boundary is the final allow / review_required / block decision under effective policy.
Hosted authenticated autonomous execution composes policy in strict authority order:
HOST -> ACCOUNT -> CALLER -> EFFECTIVE
Account policy administration is currently an InterAI-administered control plane. This is not yet customer self-service policy management, delegated tenant administration, or an enterprise policy-management product.
Accountless/x402 execution has no account profile to resolve and therefore remains HOST -> CALLER -> EFFECTIVE.
InterAI can accept verifiable assertions produced by external systems without transferring execution authority to those systems.
External evidence. Internal authority.
The provider asserts. InterAI decides authority.
The boundary is deliberate:
external provider
| | signed / verifiable assertion v InterAI parse -> verify -> bind -> record
Current Stage 2 evidence is verified, bound, and recorded as non-authoritative external evidence. It does not change the InterAI execution decision or current compatibility risk signals.
The provider’s verdict remains an assertion, not an InterAI execution instruction. An upstream PASS, CAUTION, or BLOCK does not directly become ALLOW, REVIEW_REQUIRED, or BLOCK inside InterAI.
This separation matters because evidence and authority are different responsibilities. A specialized system may know something valuable about the world without becoming the system that decides whether an autonomous action is authorized to execute.
The current external-evidence boundary is intentionally narrow and non-authoritative. Live reference resolution or any future authority-bearing mode would be a separate trust-boundary decision, not an implicit extension of the current contract.
See docs/external-evidence.md and docs/architecture.md.
Verified interoperability
Insight and InterAI independently implemented and cross-verified interoperability against the frozen external-evidence/v0 rev6 contract. The result demonstrates that a domain-specific provider can produce signed evidence that InterAI independently verifies, binds, and records as non-authoritative external evidence, while preserving the separation between provider assertion and InterAI execution authority.
This is an independently implemented technical interoperability result. It does not imply a production partnership or live production dependency between Insight and InterAI.
{
"use_case": "agent-before-payment", "action": { "type": "payment", "name": "release_vendor_payment", "description": "Release payment to a vendor agent after delivery validation", "amount_usd": 125, "currency": "USD", "irreversible": false, "external_side_effect": true }, "context": { "agent_id": "agent_123", "environment": "production", "counterparty_id": "vendor_agent_456", "user_confirmation": false }, "policy": { "require_trust_receipt": true, "amount_usd_limit": 500 } }
Possible authority result:
{
"request_contract": "autonomous_execution", "recommended_action": "allow", "policy_result": "allow", "execution_intent_digest": "sha256-hex-digest", "trust_receipt_id": "tr_01JZPUBLICEXAMPLE" }
The hosted beta currently includes additional compatibility fields such as score and risk_level; they are omitted above to keep the execution-authority boundary clear.
The calling system then decides how to honor that authority decision:
ALLOW -> verify receipt + exact intent + authorization, then execute
REVIEW_REQUIRED -> route / pause / escalate BLOCK -> abort
InterAI does not execute the action. The surrounding execution layer must route on the decision and enforce the final exact-intent comparison.
Action Boundary Lab — change the proposed action and inspect the real pre-execution decision boundary:
https://api.interailabs.dev/lab
Controlled safe demo — one limited read-only sandbox verification with a real trust receipt:
https://api.interailabs.dev/demo
Hosted verification:
curl -sS -X POST https://api.interailabs.dev/verify \
-H "Authorization: Bearer " \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "X-Idempotency-Key: vendor-payment-001" \ -d '{ "use_case":"agent-before-payment", "action":{"type":"payment","name":"release_vendor_payment","amount_usd":125,"currency":"USD","irreversible":false,"external_side_effect":true}, "context":{"environment":"production","counterparty_id":"vendor_agent_456","user_confirmation":false}, "policy":{"require_trust_receipt":true,"amount_usd_limit":500} }'
Every consequential decision can produce a durable trust receipt. Receipts are designed to make pre-execution decisions inspectable and transportable across retries, handoffs, governance systems, and later audits.
Authenticated autonomous DecisionReceipts bind policy provenance and execution_intent_digest. An ExecutionReceipt is separate host/runtime evidence about dispatch or outcome. A DecisionReceipt is evidence of a decision, not a bearer token or proof that a side effect occurred.
Current receipt signatures use HMAC-SHA256 and are service-verifiable by InterAI. That provides authenticated service-side integrity; it is not the same guarantee as an independently verifiable public-key signature that a third party can validate offline without InterAI.
A receipt proves what the signed receipt payload authenticates at that point in time. It does not prove that an underlying claim is universally true and does not replace domain-specific controls or human review where those are required.
See docs/trust-receipts.md.
The public repo contains small framework-neutral tools under toolkit/. They are licensed separately under Apache-2.0 and remain intentionally separate from the proprietary Risk Oracle decision engine:
Agent Action Gate — fail closed on provider uncertainty and execute only an unambiguous allow.Exact Action Binding — deterministic host-side mutation detection for JSON-compatible proposed actions.Decision Receipts — consume owner-authenticated signed evidence, assert an exact execution-intent digest, and use InterAI's service-verification endpoint without reserializing the opaque signed payload.Run the standalone public contracts with no package install:
node --test toolkit/*/*.test.mjs
These tools expose integration/enforcement logic only. Production verification, scoring, native decision policy, billing/storage, signing internals, trust intelligence and operational systems remain private. See the public tool boundary.
InterAI uses a hub-and-satellites model: this repository remains the Risk Oracle product/contracts/SDK hub, while selecte
Only the beginning is shown; read the rest in the repo