taodeng/olp
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dtzp555-max/olp.git synced 2026-07-19 09:45:07 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs(governance): fold in 6 codex review findings

Browse Source 
External Codex CLI review surfaced 6 substantive findings beyond what
the internal opus reviewer caught at D1. All folded in this commit.
Files changed: ALIGNMENT.md, README.md, ADR 0001, ADR 0006, CHANGELOG.

1. Provider Inventory split: Candidate vs Enabled
   - Bootstrap previously listed anthropic/openai/mistral as Tier D
     default-enabled with Authority pins still "TBD at Phase N spawn".
     This violated Rule 1 (Cite First) and Rule 3 (Match Implementation).
   - v0.1 founding now ships 0 Enabled Providers. All 8 are Candidate.
     Enablement requires: authority pin filled + plugin landed + Phase
     audit passed.

2. Antigravity Tier A downgraded to "evidence-backed pending pin"
   - Secondary reports disagree on blast radius (piunikaweb 03-02 says
     AI-tier only; piunikaweb 02-23 + OpenClaw issue + VentureBeat say
     broader). Google FAQ language naming OpenClaw/OpenCode/Claude Code
     is cited from secondary sources only — primary URL not pinned.
   - Exclusion remains active by default; constitutional weight matches
     evidence. Primary-source pinning tracked as one-shot audit task
     with 90-day Tier-reconsideration trigger.

3. ADR 0001 supersession scope narrowed
   - Previous draft claimed OLP is "the structural shape ADR 0005
     endorsed," but ADR 0005's separate-repo recommendation came with
     "BYOK from day one" + "no cli.js spawn" qualifiers OLP rejects.
   - Supersession now narrowly scoped to "single-provider-sufficiency
     premise only"; BYOK + no-spawn parts of ADR 0005 explicitly NOT
     inherited.

4. Anthropic post-2026-06-15 one-shot audit scheduled
   - Annual 14 May audit would leave the Anthropic Tier re-eval almost
     a year late after the 2026-06-15 split.
   - Added one-shot audit for 2026-06-16 (or first billing-cycle close)
     verifying observed behaviour matches spec §2 assumptions.

5. Tier A "permanent" wording unified
   - ALIGNMENT.md and ADR 0006 disagreed (permanent vs amendable).
     Unified as "Excluded by default. Cannot be re-included unless
     ADR 0006 is superseded/amended with new primary-source evidence."

6. OpenAI Tier D wording softened
   - Discussion #8338 was framed as "maintainer confirmed permissive";
     actual quote is a maintainer posture statement with explicit "I'm
     an engineer, not a lawyer" caveat.
   - Now: "maintainer signal indicates low risk; formal ToS pin pending."

Reviewer: OpenAI Codex CLI (external, fresh-context). Iron Rule 10
satisfied — internal opus reviewer was not the source of these
findings; reviewer and maintainer are distinct.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
taodeng
2026-05-23 16:21:37 +10:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.7
parent c5777aa4d7
commit 91223ee9ab
5 changed files with 90 additions and 34 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
ALIGNMENT.md
+41 -14
View File
@@ -81,29 +81,46 @@ Provider inclusion / exclusion is governed by a four-tier risk model. The full r
| Tier | Meaning | OLP treatment | | Tier | Meaning | OLP treatment |
|---|---|---| |---|---|---|
| **A** — vendor AI-platform-wide ban + explicit named prohibition + poor cost/benefit | **Permanently excluded.** Not bundled, not pluggable, not added via opt-in. | | **A** — vendor AI-platform-wide enforcement + explicit named prohibition + poor cost/benefit | **Excluded by default.** Not bundled, not pluggable, not added via opt-in. Cannot be re-included unless ADR 0006 is superseded/amended with new primary-source evidence. |
| **B** — service-level key revocation; vendor may extend across AI services | **Optional tier 2.** Default-disabled. Requires one-time explicit consent prompt on enable. README documents the policy clause and realistic revocation outcome. | | **B** — service-level key revocation; vendor may extend across AI services | **Optional tier 2.** Default-disabled. Requires one-time explicit consent prompt on enable. README documents the policy clause and realistic revocation outcome. |
| **C** — tightening signal; no documented enforcement history | **Optional tier 1.** Default-disabled. Opt-in via config without consent prompt. | | **C** — tightening signal; no documented enforcement history | **Optional tier 1.** Default-disabled. Opt-in via config without consent prompt. |
| **D** — permissive / safe | **Default-enabled.** Bundled in default config. | | **D** — permissive / safe | **Eligible for default-enabled** once the provider transitions from Candidate to Enabled (see Provider Inventory below). |
A vendor's documented ToS, FAQ language naming third-party proxy tools, observable enforcement history, and subscription cost/benefit jointly determine tier. Re-classification requires an ADR 0006 amendment. A vendor's documented ToS, FAQ language naming third-party proxy tools, observable enforcement history, and subscription cost/benefit jointly determine tier. Re-classification requires an ADR 0006 amendment. **Tier classification alone does not auto-enable a provider** — see the Candidate/Enabled split in Provider Inventory.
--- ---
## Provider Inventory (v1.0) ## Provider Inventory (v1.0)
| Provider key | Tier | Default state | Inclusion source | OLP distinguishes **Candidate Providers** (declared in this constitution as intended for inclusion, but **not yet authority-pinned**) from **Enabled Providers** (authority pin filled, plugin landed, Phase audit passed; eligible for default-enabled or opt-in installation).
|---|---|---|---|
| `anthropic` | D (re-eval post-2026-06-15) | Enabled | ADR 0001 § Mission inheritance; ADR 0006 |
| `openai` | D | Enabled | ADR 0006 |
| `mistral` | D | Enabled | ADR 0006 |
| `grok` | C | Disabled (opt-in) | ADR 0006 |
| `kimi` | C | Disabled (opt-in) | ADR 0006 |
| `minimax` | B | Disabled (consent required) | ADR 0006 |
| `glm` | B | Disabled (consent required) | ADR 0006 |
| `qwen` | B | Disabled (consent required) | ADR 0006 |
**Excluded permanently (Tier A):** Google Antigravity. See ADR 0006 for the named-prohibition + no-cost-advantage + reinstatement-friction rationale. Re-inclusion requires an ADR 0006 amendment with new evidence of policy change. The v0.1 founding commit ships **zero Enabled Providers**. This is intentional: a constitution that names a provider as "default-enabled" while its CLI version, output shape, auth artifact, and exit-code semantics are still TBD violates Rules 1 (Cite First) and 3 (Match the Implementation). Enablement is a Phase audit deliverable, not a bootstrap claim.
### Enabled Providers
| Provider key | Tier | Default state | Authority pin | Inclusion source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _(none at v0.1 founding — populated as Phase audits land)_ | — | — | — | — |
A provider transitions from Candidate to Enabled only when **all three** of the following hold:
1. Its row in the Authority pin table (Authorities § 1 above) is filled with a real CLI version + observed-behaviour transcript or docs URL — no `TBD`.
2. Its plugin lands in `lib/providers/<name>.mjs` per ADR 0002, conforming to the v1.0 Provider contract.
3. A Phase audit per spec §6 reports passing E2E for that provider (smoke against `/v1/chat/completions` round-trip + cache hit/miss + fallback chain entry).
### Candidate Providers
| Provider key | Anticipated Tier | Anticipated Phase | Inclusion source |
|---|---|---|---|
| `anthropic` | D (re-eval post-2026-06-15) | Phase 1 | ADR 0001 § Mission inheritance; ADR 0006 |
| `openai` | D | Phase 2 | ADR 0006 |
| `mistral` | D | Phase 3 | ADR 0006 |
| `grok` | C | Phase 8+ | ADR 0006 |
| `kimi` | C | Phase 8+ | ADR 0006 |
| `minimax` | B | Phase 8+ | ADR 0006 |
| `glm` | B | Phase 8+ | ADR 0006 |
| `qwen` | B | Phase 8+ | ADR 0006 |
**Excluded by default (Tier A candidate):** Google Antigravity. See ADR 0006 for the rationale, currently classified as **evidence-backed exclusion pending primary-source pin** — the Google FAQ language reportedly naming OpenClaw / OpenCode / Claude Code as prohibited is cited from secondary reports (VentureBeat, piunikaweb, The Register, OpenClaw issue #14203); a primary-source URL or archival snapshot is a follow-up audit task. Until the primary source is pinned, the Tier A classification rests on secondary evidence — sufficient for default-not-bundled, but not yet sufficient for "permanent" in the constitutional sense. Re-inclusion requires an ADR 0006 amendment with primary-source evidence either confirming or contradicting the current secondary picture.
--- ---
@@ -123,6 +140,16 @@ If a user workflow appears to depend on an unalignable behaviour, the correct re
--- ---
## One-shot Triggered Audits
In addition to the recurring 14 May audit below, the following one-shot audits are scheduled and must complete on their named trigger:
- **2026-06-16 (or first Anthropic Agent SDK Credit billing-cycle close, whichever is later)** — verify the post-2026-06-15 Anthropic billing-split behaviour matches the spec §2 assumption: programmatic `claude -p` traffic is metered against the separate Agent SDK Credit pool, not Plan limits. Update the Anthropic Authority pin row above with the observed behaviour, update ADR 0006 with the post-effective-date Tier re-evaluation, and append a Decision-log entry to the spec §10. If observed behaviour diverges from the spec assumption (e.g., Plan limits still apply, or credit pool meter differs from `$100/Max5x/month`), file a Risk-Tier reclassification per ADR 0006 amendment procedure.
- **Antigravity primary-source pin (open-ended, no deadline)** — find a primary-source URL or archival snapshot for the Google FAQ language naming OpenClaw / OpenCode / Claude Code as prohibited. Pin the URL + retrieval timestamp into ADR 0006. If the primary source cannot be located within 90 days of this commit and only secondary reports remain, file an ADR 0006 amendment proposing a re-classification (Tier A may need to soften to Tier C "evidence-backed signal only" if the prohibition cannot be primary-sourced).
---
## Annual Alignment Audit ## Annual Alignment Audit
- **Date:** 14 May each year (the anniversary of the Anthropic 2026-05-14 announcement, which is the structural trigger for OLP). - **Date:** 14 May each year (the anniversary of the Anthropic 2026-05-14 announcement, which is the structural trigger for OLP).
CHANGELOG.md
+15
View File
@@ -2,6 +2,21 @@
All notable changes to OLP land here. Per `CLAUDE.md` release_kit overlay, this file is the source of truth for GitHub release notes. All notable changes to OLP land here. Per `CLAUDE.md` release_kit overlay, this file is the source of truth for GitHub release notes.
## Unreleased — 2026-05-23 (governance amendments per external codex review)
External AI review (OpenAI Codex CLI) of the bootstrap governance surfaced six substantive findings beyond what the internal opus reviewer caught. All six folded in this turn:
1. **Provider Inventory split into Candidate vs Enabled** — ALIGNMENT.md previously listed `anthropic` / `openai` / `mistral` as Tier D default-enabled while their Authority pins were still `TBD at Phase N spawn`. This violated Rule 1 (Cite First) and Rule 3 (Match the Implementation). The v0.1 founding commit now ships **zero Enabled Providers**; all 8 providers are Candidate. Enablement is a Phase audit deliverable, not a bootstrap claim. (ALIGNMENT.md § Provider Inventory; README.md § Supported Providers.)
2. **Antigravity Tier A evidence strength downgraded to "evidence-backed, pending primary-source pin"** — ADR 0006 previously framed the Antigravity exclusion as a closed case based on secondary reports. The reports actually disagree on blast radius (piunikaweb 03-02 says AI-tier only; piunikaweb 02-23, OpenClaw issue #14203, VentureBeat say broader). The Google FAQ language naming OpenClaw/OpenCode/Claude Code is cited from secondary sources only; the original FAQ URL or archival snapshot has not been primary-source-pinned. The exclusion is still active by default, but the constitutional weight now matches the evidence: secondary-sourced. Primary-source pinning is tracked as an open one-shot audit task with a 90-day Tier-reconsideration trigger.
3. **ADR 0001 supersession scope honesty** — ADR 0001 previously claimed OLP is "the structural shape ADR 0005 endorsed: a separate repo with multi-provider design baked in from day one." But ADR 0005's separate-repo recommendation came with two qualifiers OLP rejects: "BYOK from day one" and "no `cli.js` spawn." OLP rejects both — it is non-commercial and explicitly spawn-binary. The supersession is now narrowly scoped to "single-provider-sufficiency premise only"; the BYOK / no-spawn parts of ADR 0005 are not inherited.
4. **Anthropic post-2026-06-15 one-shot audit scheduled** — ALIGNMENT.md's annual 14 May audit would have left the Anthropic Tier re-evaluation almost a year late. Added a one-shot audit for 2026-06-16 (or first Anthropic billing-cycle close) that verifies the post-effective-date behaviour and updates ADR 0006 + Authority pin.
5. **Tier A "permanent" language unified across docs** — ALIGNMENT.md and ADR 0006 disagreed: one said "permanently excluded," the other said "amendment-procedure-revisable." Unified as "Excluded by default. Cannot be re-included unless ADR 0006 is superseded or amended with new primary-source evidence." The amendment procedure remains available; "Tier A" sets the bar for re-inclusion at constitutional-amendment level, not at routine PR level.
6. **OpenAI Tier D wording softened** — ADR 0006 previously described Codex Discussion #8338 as "maintainer confirmed permissive." The discussion is actually a maintainer posture statement ("OSS projects like OpenCode are doing things similar") with an explicit "I'm an engineer, not a lawyer" caveat. Now described as "maintainer signal indicates low risk; formal ToS pin pending" with the pin tracked as a follow-up audit task.
Files changed: `ALIGNMENT.md`, `README.md`, `docs/adr/0001-project-founding.md`, `docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md`. No code, no CI workflow, no PR template change.
Reviewer for this amendment: OpenAI Codex CLI (external, fresh-context). Iron Rule 10 satisfied — the internal opus reviewer was not the source of the findings, and the maintainer is not the author of the underlying critique. The amendment's substantive changes are direct fold-ins of the reviewer's six findings; the internal opus reviewer's earlier APPROVE_WITH_MINOR verdict is therefore narrowed retroactively to "APPROVE conditional on these amendments" for the purposes of the v0.1 governance bootstrap.
## v0.1.0-bootstrap — 2026-05-23 ## v0.1.0-bootstrap — 2026-05-23
### Phase 0 — Repo bootstrap ### Phase 0 — Repo bootstrap
README.md
+15 -11
View File
@@ -43,20 +43,24 @@ olp start
Source of truth: [`models-registry.json`](./models-registry.json). This table is regenerated from the registry per the [`release_kit`](./CLAUDE.md) overlay; do not edit it out of sync. Source of truth: [`models-registry.json`](./models-registry.json). This table is regenerated from the registry per the [`release_kit`](./CLAUDE.md) overlay; do not edit it out of sync.
| Provider key | CLI | Subscription / auth | Risk Tier (per [ADR 0006](./docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md)) | Default state | OLP distinguishes **Candidate Providers** (declared as intended, not yet pinned) from **Enabled Providers** (authority pin filled + plugin landed + Phase audit passed). The v0.1 founding commit ships **zero Enabled Providers** — enablement is a Phase audit deliverable, not a bootstrap claim. See [`ALIGNMENT.md` § Provider Inventory](./ALIGNMENT.md) for the transition gate.
### Candidate Providers
| Provider key | CLI | Subscription / auth | Anticipated Tier | Anticipated Phase |
|---|---|---|---|---| |---|---|---|---|---|
| `anthropic` | `claude -p` | Pro / Max OAuth (pre-2026-06-15); Agent SDK Credit pool after | D (re-eval post-2026-06-15) | Enabled | | `anthropic` | `claude -p` | Pro / Max OAuth (pre-2026-06-15); Agent SDK Credit pool after | D (re-eval post-2026-06-15) | Phase 1 |
| `openai` | `codex exec --json` | ChatGPT Pro OAuth or API key | D | Enabled | | `openai` | `codex exec --json` | ChatGPT Pro OAuth or API key | D | Phase 2 |
| `mistral` | `vibe --prompt --output json` | Le Chat Pro API key | D | Enabled | | `mistral` | `vibe --prompt --output json` | Le Chat Pro API key | D | Phase 3 |
| `grok` | `grok -p --output-format streaming-json` | xAI Build `xai-...` API key | C | Disabled (opt-in) | | `grok` | `grok -p --output-format streaming-json` | xAI Build `xai-...` API key | C | Phase 8+ |
| `kimi` | `kimi -p --output-format stream-json` | Moonshot Kimi API key | C | Disabled (opt-in) | | `kimi` | `kimi -p --output-format stream-json` | Moonshot Kimi API key | C | Phase 8+ |
| `minimax` | TBD | MiniMax Token Plan (¥29+/mo) | B | Disabled (consent required) | | `minimax` | TBD | MiniMax Token Plan (¥29+/mo) | B | Phase 8+ |
| `glm` | TBD | Zhipu Coding Plan ($10+/mo) | B | Disabled (consent required) | | `glm` | TBD | Zhipu Coding Plan ($10+/mo) | B | Phase 8+ |
| `qwen` | TBD | Alibaba Coding Plan ($50/mo) | B | Disabled (consent required) | | `qwen` | TBD | Alibaba Coding Plan ($50/mo) | B | Phase 8+ |
**Risk tier guide.** D = permissive / safe; C = tightening signal, no enforcement history; B = service-level key revocation risk, vendor may extend across that vendor's AI services; A = permanently excluded. Tier B providers prompt for explicit consent on first enable and record consent in `~/.olp/config.json`. See [`ALIGNMENT.md` § Risk Tier Framework](./ALIGNMENT.md#risk-tier-framework). **Risk tier guide.** D = permissive / safe (eligible for default-enabled); C = tightening signal, no enforcement history (opt-in); B = service-level key revocation risk (opt-in + consent); A = excluded by default (cannot be opt-in enabled). Tier B providers prompt for explicit consent on first enable and record consent in `~/.olp/config.json`. See [`ALIGNMENT.md` § Risk Tier Framework](./ALIGNMENT.md#risk-tier-framework).
**Excluded permanently (Tier A).** Google Antigravity. See [ADR 0006](./docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md) for the named-prohibition + no-cost-advantage + reinstatement-friction rationale. **Excluded by default (Tier A — evidence-backed, pending primary-source pin).** Google Antigravity. See [ADR 0006](./docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md) for the named-prohibition + no-cost-advantage + reinstatement-friction rationale, and for the primary-source pinning follow-up that may force a Tier reconsideration if the Google FAQ language cannot be sourced within 90 days of 2026-05-23.
--- ---
docs/adr/0001-project-founding.md
+15 -5
View File
@@ -27,12 +27,22 @@ Found OLP (Open LLM Proxy) as a new project, separate from OCP, with the followi
- A model-capability router. OLP does not auto-route to "the smartest model"; the user picks the model explicitly per chain in `config.routing.chains[]`. Capability routing is a separate problem with separate failure modes and is out of scope for v1.0 and beyond. - A model-capability router. OLP does not auto-route to "the smartest model"; the user picks the model explicitly per chain in `config.routing.chains[]`. Capability routing is a separate problem with separate failure modes and is out of scope for v1.0 and beyond.
- A conversation-state store. Memory and continuity are client-side concerns (Memory Continuity, Hermes equivalents, IDE-side context). OLP is a pure stateless proxy. - A conversation-state store. Memory and continuity are client-side concerns (Memory Continuity, Hermes equivalents, IDE-side context). OLP is a pure stateless proxy.
**Supersession of OCP ADR 0005.** OCP ADR 0005 ("No Multi-Provider Refactor") is explicitly superseded by OLP's existence. Specifically: **Supersession of OCP ADR 0005.** OCP ADR 0005 ("No Multi-Provider Refactor") is explicitly superseded by OLP's existence. The supersession is **narrow** and **does not adopt all of ADR 0005's alternative-path suggestions**:
- ADR 0005's premise that *single-provider sufficiency* was the right scope for the maintainer's LLM proxy was correct on 2026-05-06 and is wrong on 2026-05-23, because Anthropic changed the underlying contract.
- ADR 0005's recommendation that "commercial work, if pursued, starts elsewhere" pointed correctly toward "a separate repository, separate name, BYOK from day one, no `cli.js` spawn." OLP is not the commercial work ADR 0005 contemplated, but it is the structural shape ADR 0005 endorsed: a separate repo with multi-provider design baked in from day one.
- OCP itself is not deleted. Per spec §7, OCP enters maintenance mode when OLP v0.1 ships. The two projects do not parallel-run in production (port-3456 conflict, single launchd service slot, one set of credentials per machine).
OCP ADR 0005 receives a header amendment on merge of this ADR: *"Superseded by OLP — see [OLP repo URL] ADR 0001."* The body of ADR 0005 is otherwise untouched. Future readers should see the original reasoning intact and the supersession marker explicit. What OLP genuinely inherits from ADR 0005:
1. **Structural separation:** the judgment that if multi-provider becomes needed, the right move is to start a separate project, not retrofit OCP. ✓
2. **Multi-provider design baked in from day one** (rather than retrofitted onto a single-provider core). ✓
What OLP supersedes in ADR 0005:
- ADR 0005's premise that *single-provider sufficiency* was the right scope for the maintainer's LLM proxy was correct on 2026-05-06 and is wrong on 2026-05-23, because Anthropic changed the underlying contract. This is the load-bearing supersession.
What OLP **does NOT inherit** from ADR 0005 (and where ADR 0005's reasoning does not apply to OLP):
- ADR 0005's separate-project recommendation came with two qualifiers that OLP rejects: "BYOK from day one" and "no `cli.js` spawn." Both qualifiers were appropriate for the *commercial* path ADR 0005 was contemplating. OLP is not commercial — it is personal- and family-scale, shares the maintainer's own subscription quota across family clients, and explicitly spawns provider CLIs (it is precisely the spawn-binary architecture that delivers the "subscription quota maximization" value proposition spec §1 names).
- OLP is therefore not the commercial pivot ADR 0005 endorsed. It is a personal-use re-architecture of the proxy-CLI pattern, which ADR 0005 did not contemplate. The supersession is honest about this gap.
OCP itself is not deleted. Per spec §7, OCP enters maintenance mode when OLP v0.1 ships. The two projects do not parallel-run in production (port-3456 conflict, single launchd service slot, one set of credentials per machine).
OCP ADR 0005 receives a header amendment on merge of this ADR: *"Superseded in part by OLP — see https://github.com/dtzp555-max/olp ADR 0001 for the narrow scope of the supersession (single-provider-sufficiency premise only; ADR 0005's commercial / BYOK / no-spawn recommendations are not adopted)."* The body of ADR 0005 is otherwise untouched. Future readers should see the original reasoning intact and the supersession marker scoped explicitly.
## Consequences ## Consequences
docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md
+4 -4
View File
@@ -26,27 +26,27 @@ One precision point requires emphasis. The Google Antigravity ban is **not** a "
OLP adopts a four-tier provider classification framework per spec §3.1: OLP adopts a four-tier provider classification framework per spec §3.1:
**Tier A — Excluded.** Vendor's AI suite (note: scoped to AI services, not always whole account) suspended on enforcement; vendor documentation explicitly names third-party proxy tools as prohibited; subscription price does not differentially advantage the provider over Tier D alternatives. Bar is intentionally narrow: **all three conditions** must hold for Tier A exclusion. Single-signal triggers (e.g., a tightening clause with no enforcement) drop to Tier C, not A. **Tier A — Excluded by default.** Vendor's AI suite (note: scoped to AI services, not always whole account) suspended on enforcement; vendor documentation explicitly names third-party proxy tools as prohibited; subscription price does not differentially advantage the provider over Tier D alternatives. Bar is intentionally narrow: **all three conditions** must hold for Tier A exclusion. Single-signal triggers (e.g., a tightening clause with no enforcement) drop to Tier C, not A. **Cannot be re-included unless ADR 0006 is superseded or amended with new primary-source evidence.** "Tier A" is not "permanently and irrevocably excluded" — the project's amendment procedure remains available. What "Tier A" means is "the bar for re-inclusion is a constitutional change with primary-source evidence, not a routine PR."
**Tier B — Optional, default-disabled, explicit consent required.** Service-level key revocation risk; vendor may extend revocation across that vendor's AI surfaces but does not touch non-AI services. ToS contains explicit anti-automation language. Enable requires a one-time consent UX: the consent prompt names the specific provider's policy clause and the realistic outcome (key revocation, not account suspension). Consent is recorded in `~/.olp/config.json` with a timestamp. **Tier B — Optional, default-disabled, explicit consent required.** Service-level key revocation risk; vendor may extend revocation across that vendor's AI surfaces but does not touch non-AI services. ToS contains explicit anti-automation language. Enable requires a one-time consent UX: the consent prompt names the specific provider's policy clause and the realistic outcome (key revocation, not account suspension). Consent is recorded in `~/.olp/config.json` with a timestamp.
**Tier C — Optional, default-disabled, no consent UX.** ToS language has tightened (recent ToS update with anti-third-party direction) but no enforcement history exists. Enable is a config toggle; no consent prompt because the risk is signal-only rather than documented. **Tier C — Optional, default-disabled, no consent UX.** ToS language has tightened (recent ToS update with anti-third-party direction) but no enforcement history exists. Enable is a config toggle; no consent prompt because the risk is signal-only rather than documented.
**Tier D — Default-enabled.** No anti-third-party clauses in subscription ToS; healthy ecosystem; permissive maintainer posture (where verifiable, e.g., maintainer-confirmed via official channel). **Tier D — Eligible for default-enabled.** No anti-third-party clauses in subscription ToS; healthy ecosystem; permissive maintainer posture (where verifiable, e.g., maintainer-confirmed via official channel). **Tier D classification does not automatically enable a provider in OLP**: enablement requires the provider to transition from Candidate to Enabled per ALIGNMENT.md § Provider Inventory (authority pin filled + plugin landed + Phase audit passed). Tier classification is the *eligibility* gate; the Candidate-to-Enabled transition is the *activation* gate.
**Current classification table (v0.1):** **Current classification table (v0.1):**
| Provider | Tier | Reason | | Provider | Tier | Reason |
|----------|------|--------| |----------|------|--------|
| Anthropic (Claude Code) | D | OCP-inherited. Pre-2026-06-15 subscription model was permissive. Post-2026-06-15 the credit-pool-vs-subscription split is a **quota constraint** within OLP's mission (manage it via fallback), not a **third-party prohibition**. ToS does not name third-party tools. | | Anthropic (Claude Code) | D | OCP-inherited. Pre-2026-06-15 subscription model was permissive. Post-2026-06-15 the credit-pool-vs-subscription split is a **quota constraint** within OLP's mission (manage it via fallback), not a **third-party prohibition**. ToS does not name third-party tools. |
| OpenAI Codex | D | Codex maintainer confirmed permissive in Codex GitHub Discussion #8338 (2026 reference). Codex CLI is the official Codex client; subscription auth via ChatGPT account is the intended UX. | | OpenAI Codex | D | Codex maintainer signal indicates low risk: GitHub Discussion #8338 confirms the CLI is permissively licensed and that OSS projects doing similar work exist (maintainer also stated "I'm an engineer, not a lawyer," so the signal is a maintainer posture statement, **not** a formal ToS blessing). Codex CLI is the official Codex client; subscription auth via ChatGPT account is the intended UX. Formal ToS pin pending — recorded as a follow-up audit task in ALIGNMENT.md § One-shot Triggered Audits. |
| Mistral Vibe (Le Chat Pro) | D | Usage Policy contains no anti-third-party / anti-automation clauses. Vibe is the official Mistral CLI; Le Chat Pro subscription explicitly includes Vibe. | | Mistral Vibe (Le Chat Pro) | D | Usage Policy contains no anti-third-party / anti-automation clauses. Vibe is the official Mistral CLI; Le Chat Pro subscription explicitly includes Vibe. |
| xAI Grok Build | C | Jan 2026 ToS tightening introduced more restrictive automation language; no documented enforcement wave; uses API-key auth (not SuperGrok OAuth) to remain in the lower-risk lane. | | xAI Grok Build | C | Jan 2026 ToS tightening introduced more restrictive automation language; no documented enforcement wave; uses API-key auth (not SuperGrok OAuth) to remain in the lower-risk lane. |
| Moonshot Kimi | C | "3 violations = ban" generic policy; no third-party-CLI-specific enforcement observed; API-key auth (not OAuth). | | Moonshot Kimi | C | "3 violations = ban" generic policy; no third-party-CLI-specific enforcement observed; API-key auth (not OAuth). |
| MiniMax | B | Token Plan policy prohibits automated scripts. Key revocation risk documented. Consent: key may be revoked; account remains usable. | | MiniMax | B | Token Plan policy prohibits automated scripts. Key revocation risk documented. Consent: key may be revoked; account remains usable. |
| Zhipu GLM | B | Coding Plan restricted to "officially supported tools." Key revocation risk. Consent UX: key may be revoked; account remains usable. | | Zhipu GLM | B | Coding Plan restricted to "officially supported tools." Key revocation risk. Consent UX: key may be revoked; account remains usable. |
| Alibaba Qwen | B | Coding Plan policy prohibits automation. Key revocation risk. Consent UX as above. | | Alibaba Qwen | B | Coding Plan policy prohibits automation. Key revocation risk. Consent UX as above. |
| Google Antigravity | A | Feb 2026 enforcement wave restricted Antigravity + Gemini CLI + Cloud Code Private APIs for affected accounts. **Important scope correction:** the ban is *Google AI services tier* (not whole Google account); Gmail/Drive/YouTube are unaffected per piunikaweb 2026-03-02 OpenClaw exec confirmation. Excluded on the **combination** of (1) Google FAQ explicitly names OpenClaw/OpenCode/Claude Code as prohibited third-party tools — only provider in this survey with named-tool prohibition; (2) AI Pro $20 / Ultra $200 is not differentially cheap vs OpenAI Codex Plus $20 / Pro $200, so no cost advantage to taking on the risk; (3) reinstatement process exists but is via Google Form with unclear SLA. Any single factor would not justify Tier A; the combination does. | | Google Antigravity | A (evidence-backed, pending primary-source pin) | Feb 2026 enforcement wave restricted Antigravity + Gemini CLI + Cloud Code Private APIs for affected accounts. **Blast-radius caveat:** secondary reports disagree — piunikaweb 2026-03-02 cites an OpenClaw exec saying only Antigravity AI surfaces were affected (Gmail/Drive unaffected); other reports (piunikaweb 2026-02-23 itself, OpenClaw issue #14203 framing, VentureBeat, Digital Watch) describe affected users losing "entire Google account access" or "Workspace temporarily affected." The two pictures are not yet reconcilable from secondary sources. Excluded on the **combination** of: (1) Google FAQ reportedly names OpenClaw/OpenCode/Claude Code as prohibited third-party tools — this is the only provider in the survey with named-tool prohibition, **but the FAQ URL or archival snapshot has not been primary-source-pinned** at v0.1 founding; (2) AI Pro $20 / Ultra $200 is not differentially cheap vs OpenAI Codex Plus $20 / Pro $200, so no cost advantage to taking on the risk; (3) reinstatement process exists but is via Google Form with unclear SLA. Any single factor would not justify Tier A; the combination does. **Primary-source pinning is tracked as an open one-shot audit task** in ALIGNMENT.md § One-shot Triggered Audits; if the FAQ language cannot be primary-sourced within 90 days of 2026-05-23, an ADR 0006 amendment must propose a Tier reconsideration (possibly Tier C "evidence-backed signal only" rather than Tier A). |
**Consent UX for Tier B (per spec §3.1).** First-enable triggers a CLI prompt: **Consent UX for Tier B (per spec §3.1).** First-enable triggers a CLI prompt: