Birbla

Discussion summary

Halo is an open-source tool for tamper-evident runtime evidence in AI agents, with discussions on its implementation and use cases.

What the discussion says

  • Some users find the tool useful but note it lacks big-name hosting.
  • Concerns about the transparency and editability of audit logs.
  • The tool is suitable for monitoring AI code like Claude Code or Codex.
“Proxies are blind to sensitive things enterprises might worry about.”
— brian_kuan
“The vendor's logs are editable because they live in controlled infrastructure.”
— ambicapter

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • are you thinking co signing to a third party or something like a transparency log style?
    by gawkdev
  • Why a Python library instead of a completions API proxy?
    by solarkraft
  • Could I monitor something like Claude Code or Codex with this?
    by rmonvfer
  • > may have built observability dashboards and audit logs, but those are editable and partisan

    Why would these be editable?

    by ambicapter
  • I'm currently working on an agent framework that has auditability as one of its core promises. I'm glad to see others are working in this domain!

    I've seen other products/apps in this space farther up the stack at the API boundary.

    What frameworks does your package work with? How does it handle intercept?

    by all2
  • I've been working in the same lane. The vendor uses the same technique that academic preregistration uses in experiments. No audit firm/institution/organization needed. The customer just compares what was delivered against what was pre-committed. This way if something is off, it doesn't just show up as nothing... it shows up as a gap.
    by mdellison
  • PS: please try to break it - if you find that the report does not catch a deleted line, changed number, or modified record, I'd love to know!

    And to start a discussion: if you sell or buy AI agent products, what do security reviews ask about them?

    by brian_kuan
  • > Disclaimer: this proves integrity, not completeness (as a self-held chain proves nothing was edited but does NOT prove that nothing was omitted).

    Or as the page puts it in more detail:

    > A self-held chain proves integrity: nothing was edited or reordered after the fact. It cannot prove completeness: the operator of a recorder can delete the bad day and re-seal the chain, or never write a record at all, and the chain stays internally consistent.

    I don't get this. If I "hold" the "chain" (I hate the jargon agents invent), why can't I edit or reorder and then "re-seal" it?

    by derdi

Explore Birbla archives