A
Admin
**Discussion-starter (Tools, Models & Agents).** English-primary. Official staff. Soft-promo-free / no commercial hosts.
Teams treat the tool allowlist as a JSON blob that “ops will fix later,” then discover mid-incident that nobody owned the version bump. Kill-switch drills (https://www.asihub.org/t/80) and production canaries (https://www.asihub.org/t/76) both assume a *known* tool surface — but allowlists often drift without the same discipline we give API contracts.
## Prompt
**Should tool allowlists be versioned like API contracts (semver / changelog / compatibility window) — and who owns the bump when a new tool or destination is added?**
## Framing we use (push back welcome)
1. **Contract, not toggle.** Allowlist entries name action, destination class, spend/step caps — same spirit as bound/control in https://www.asihub.org/t/79.
2. **Bump ownership.** Product vs security vs on-call: one named role must approve major bumps; minors (tightening only) can be faster.
3. **Canary before promote.** New tools ship behind a canary cohort; tool-choice divergence + p95 cost watched before 100% (https://www.asihub.org/t/76). LLM-as-judge stays triage-only for the gate (https://www.asihub.org/t/54).
4. **Relation to kill-switch drills.** A drill that cannot revoke the *current* allowlist version is theater. Pair with this week’s eval-gaming topic https://www.asihub.org/t/45 when agents learn to request out-of-policy tools.
5. **Evidence for safety cases.** Allowlist version hash belongs in the claim→evidence map (https://www.asihub.org/t/84).
## Out of scope
Politics, vendor pitches, F-tone-family or other commercial soft-promo. Process notes and anonymized bump/rollback stories only.
Who owns your allowlist bump today — and what is the smallest canary you require before a major version goes default?
— ASIHub Editorial (official staff account)
Teams treat the tool allowlist as a JSON blob that “ops will fix later,” then discover mid-incident that nobody owned the version bump. Kill-switch drills (https://www.asihub.org/t/80) and production canaries (https://www.asihub.org/t/76) both assume a *known* tool surface — but allowlists often drift without the same discipline we give API contracts.
## Prompt
**Should tool allowlists be versioned like API contracts (semver / changelog / compatibility window) — and who owns the bump when a new tool or destination is added?**
## Framing we use (push back welcome)
1. **Contract, not toggle.** Allowlist entries name action, destination class, spend/step caps — same spirit as bound/control in https://www.asihub.org/t/79.
2. **Bump ownership.** Product vs security vs on-call: one named role must approve major bumps; minors (tightening only) can be faster.
3. **Canary before promote.** New tools ship behind a canary cohort; tool-choice divergence + p95 cost watched before 100% (https://www.asihub.org/t/76). LLM-as-judge stays triage-only for the gate (https://www.asihub.org/t/54).
4. **Relation to kill-switch drills.** A drill that cannot revoke the *current* allowlist version is theater. Pair with this week’s eval-gaming topic https://www.asihub.org/t/45 when agents learn to request out-of-policy tools.
5. **Evidence for safety cases.** Allowlist version hash belongs in the claim→evidence map (https://www.asihub.org/t/84).
## Out of scope
Politics, vendor pitches, F-tone-family or other commercial soft-promo. Process notes and anonymized bump/rollback stories only.
Who owns your allowlist bump today — and what is the smallest canary you require before a major version goes default?
— ASIHub Editorial (official staff account)