Усильте агента
Собственная команда издателя. Не эндпоинт PlugMCP.
Host a copy with our keys and logs.
npx -y @codapult/[email protected]У Claude Code нет ссылки для установки локальной команды. Скопируйте команду ниже и выполните её в терминале.
claude mcp add codapult-guard -- npx -y @codapult/guard@0.14.1Выполните в терминале.
{ "mcpServers": { "codapult-guard": { "command": "npx", "args": [ "-y", "@codapult/[email protected]" ] } }}claude_desktop_config.json
Удалённый URL или команда на вашем компьютере? Чем различаются два способа установки
Запустить на PlugMCP
A new server you create. It is not this listing's official endpoint. Use the publisher install when you want their URL and their credentials.
Запуск@codapult/guard is local-first, model-agnostic architecture guardrail software for AI coding
agents. Use it to detect architectural drift, enforce approved software architecture rules, and
check code changes in JavaScript and TypeScript projects.
Guard learns how your codebase is structured, records project architecture as reviewable memory, and checks future changes against the rules your team approves. It connects AI coding agents to those rules and returns deterministic evidence when a change introduces a covered architecture regression. Run the same project-specific checks locally and in CI.
Suppose a SaaS project has an established boundary:
Client → Server Action → Service → Repository → Database
An AI agent can still produce code that is valid TypeScript but crosses that boundary:
Client → Database
After the project has explicitly approved a matching import rule or deterministic contract, Guard checks the changed files and reports matching violations deterministically:
Codapult Guard (changed files)
Scanned 1 source file(s); suppressed 12 baseline finding(s).
src/app/settings/page.tsx:1 [client-no-persistence-import]
Client modules should not import persistence-layer modules.
import: @/lib/db/client
✗ 1 issue(s) found
Exit code: 1
The file path, rule ID, message, and counts depend on the project. This is the actual CLI output
shape: Guard does not infer that every Client → Database edge is forbidden, and it does not
activate proposals silently. The team approves the relevant policy first; then existing findings
can be baselined while newly matching violations fail the gate and give the agent bounded evidence
to repair.
Guard does not tell every project to use the same architecture. It discovers the architecture that is already there, then lets the team decide what becomes policy.
The core is universal. The strongest first-class scenarios are Next.js SaaS and AI-assisted development, including server/client boundaries, routes, persistence, authentication, billing, background jobs, environment configuration, and AI integrations.
AI agents can produce syntactically valid code that still violates the architecture of a real project: a client component imports server-only code, a new action bypasses the established auth boundary, a route writes to the database directly, or a change duplicates a service that already exists.
Existing tools remain essential, but they solve different problems:
Requirements: Node.js >=20.19 and a JavaScript or TypeScript project.
pnpm add -D @codapult/guard
# or
npm install --save-dev @codapult/guard
The package exposes the codapult-guard binary:
pnpm exec codapult-guard init
The npm package is scoped as @codapult/guard; the executable intentionally remains
codapult-guard for discoverability and consistency with the standalone product name.
Run from the project root:
# 1. Build the initial project model and baseline
pnpm exec codapult-guard init
# 2. Inspect only new and changed architecture findings
pnpm exec codapult-guard check --changed
# 3. Prepare deterministic context for an AI review
pnpm exec codapult-guard review --requirement docs/acceptance.md
# 4. Run the configured completion gate
pnpm exec codapult-guard verify --json
init is protected and refuses to overwrite an existing baseline. Use init --force only when
deliberately replacing the project memory. Use analyze to refresh discovered facts without
resetting the baseline.
Guard separates facts, policy, verification, and decision:
Guard does not assume a fixed UI → actions → services → repositories → database architecture.
It can discover that shape when the project exhibits it, but observed patterns become enforceable
only after explicit approval.
Policy paths are validated as project-relative paths. Guard rejects traversal, absolute paths, and symlinks escaping the project root; import-boundary checks include imports, re-exports, and literal dynamic imports.
Guard stores policy at the project level, while each policy item can target a narrower boundary:
Routine checks do not change source code, rules, contracts, baseline, or waivers. Commands that
change policy are explicit: init, rules approve, contracts approve|reject, baseline accept|remove, and
waiver add|renew|remove. analyze refreshes derived project facts, while verify may run the
project's configured commands and records a local run manifest; neither changes approved policy.
For the complete mutation contract and host/CI controls, see Policy mutation control.
The model is framework-aware without being framework-dependent:
Capabilities are evidence, not requirements. A Vite app, Express service, Hono project, Node package, monorepo, or Next.js SaaS can all use the same Guard core.
Guard is an architecture control plane for AI-assisted development. It protects project-specific boundaries and change impact using local facts, approved policy, and deterministic verification.
Guard is not a replacement for ESLint, TypeScript, tests, SAST, or a general-purpose PR bot. Those tools answer different questions; Guard connects their results with the architectural memory that an AI coding agent needs before and after changing a repository.
init once → edit → check --changed → review → verify → commit / merge
↘ analyze after structural changes
init builds project memory and establishes the initial baseline.check scans the current project; check --changed is the fast change-scoped architecture gate.review prepares a bounded and redacted diff packet for an AI host; it does not call an LLM.verify runs Guard policy, configured project checks, adapters, runtime diagnostics, and
contract validation.audit inspects the complete current state, including findings accepted by the baseline.For a focused change explanation, use codapult-guard impact <file...> or the equivalent
codapult_guard_impact MCP tool. It reports both directions of the dependency graph: what the
changed module uses and which transitive callers may be affected. review includes the same
impact packet plus typed Git changes (added, modified, deleted, and renamed) for the AI
host.
Guard state is stored in .codapult/guard/:
.codapult/guard/
├── project.json discovered project model
├── architecture.json observed architecture and capabilities
├── conventions.json recurring project conventions
├── rules.json active and proposed deterministic rules
├── contracts.json project-specific boundaries and required calls
├── proposals.json evidence and approval history
├── baseline.json accepted pre-existing findings
├── agent.json AI-host completion-gate configuration
├── waivers.json time-bounded exceptions to active findings
└── history/ project snapshots and local verification run manifests
Commit policy and baseline files when the team wants shared guardrails. Treat cache artifacts as disposable according to the project’s policy, and never commit secrets.
Baseline fingerprints do not include line numbers, so formatting and line movement do not recreate the same finding. They do include the rule and affected file/import identity, so a rename or module move can produce a new fingerprint and should be reviewed explicitly before accepting it into the baseline.
Baseline records legacy findings that existed when Guard was introduced. A waiver is different: it temporarily suppresses one active finding and must have an owner, reason, and expiry date.
codapult-guard waiver add <fingerprint> \
--owner platform-team \
--reason "Migration in progress" \
--expires 2026-12-28
codapult-guard waiver list
codapult-guard waiver renew <id> --expires 2027-01-31 --reason "Migration continues"
codapult-guard waiver remove <id> --reason "Migration completed"
Guard warns when a waiver is within the configured warning window (14 days by default). Once it expires, the original finding is active again. Protected policy can forbid waiver changes through MCP so an agent can propose a waiver but cannot approve it itself. Waivers are intentionally fingerprint-specific; changing the violating code invalidates the waiver.
Teams can optionally cap each new waiver or renewal with waiverPolicy.maxDays in rules.json:
"waiverPolicy": { "warningDays": 14, "maxDays": 90 }
The cap applies to the requested grant from the current operation; it does not silently delete or
rewrite existing waivers. Boundary findings with severity error fail check; warning findings
and waiver-expiry reminders remain advisory.
Run codapult-guard doctor to detect an explicitly downgraded client or package boundary. Doctor
reports it as a warning and leaves the project policy unchanged.
Budgets are policy, not a universal style rule. Add them only for a named risk boundary such as a service, route handler, or dependency-heavy module:
{
"id": "service-lines",
"description": "Services must remain reviewable.",
"metric": "lines",
"scope": ["src/services"],
"limit": 300,
"severity": "warning",
"reason": "Keep service changes reviewable by one owner.",
"status": "active"
}
Place budgets in the budgets array in .codapult/guard/rules.json. Supported metrics are
lines, bytes, and imports. Generated files, schemas, migrations, and other paths are not
checked unless they are explicitly included in scope; a wildcard such as * can intentionally
cover the project root. Invalid, absolute, parent-directory, or nonexistent scopes fail the Guard
gate. Changing a budget is a policy decision:
review the diff and update its written reason rather than silently increasing the limit.
Guard is deliberately model-agnostic. It does not send source code to a remote LLM and does not edit source files by itself. The AI host owns the model call, permissions, repair loop, and final decision.
Start the standalone MCP server over stdio:
pnpm exec codapult-guard mcp-server
Register that command in the MCP client from the project root. For example, Cursor can use
.cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"codapult-guard": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "pnpm",
"args": ["exec", "codapult-guard", "mcp-server"],
"cwd": "${workspaceFolder}"
}
}
}
For clients that accept a generic stdio server, use the same command and set its working
directory to the project root. Guard reads local files only; no API key or model provider is
required. Host-specific examples are in docs/integrations/.
Recommended agent loop:
task finished
→ codapult_guard_next_action
→ codapult_guard_context
→ codapult_guard_review(requirement, diff)
→ codapult_guard_verify
→ repair reported failures
→ repeat until pass or bounded iteration limit
codapult_guard_context keeps the project state explicit for the host: observations are
discovered facts only, proposals.pendingRules and proposals.pendingContracts are unapproved
policy suggestions, policy contains only active rules/contracts plus baseline and waiver state,
and verification reports whether a check has actually run. A context response with
verification.status: "not-run" and findings: null is not a passing check.
For Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, and generic hosts, see
docs/integrations/.
Guard is published in the official MCP Registry
under the server name io.github.codapult/guard. The Registry is the discovery layer for the
published @codapult/guard npm package and its stdio MCP server; it does not replace npm
installation or the host-specific configuration above. For deterministic setup, install the npm
package directly and use the MCP configuration shown below.
For workflows where the authoring agent must not approve its own policy proposals, set Guard to
protected mode in rules.json:
{
"approval": {
"mode": "protected",
"allowMcpApproval": false,
"requireDistinctActor": true
}
}
MCP can then read and propose policy, while approval happens through the CLI or a protected CI/PR
process. With requireDistinctActor, CLI and permitted MCP approvals require GUARD_APPROVER,
and Guard rejects the same declared actor when a proposal was generated with GUARD_PROPOSER.
These variables provide declared provenance only; external branch protection or signed identity
remains responsible for proving who approved the change.
In CI, verify pull requests against the policy from the protected base commit rather than the copy carried by the branch:
codapult-guard verify --policy-base "$BASE_SHA" --json
Guard then evaluates the changed source with the base commit's rules, contracts, baseline, waivers,
and completion-gate configuration. The result reports policy.source, policy.ref,
policy.revision, policy.fingerprint, and whether the checked-out policy differs from that
base. A branch cannot relax its policy or disable the gate and use that relaxed copy for the same
verification run.
The supplied docs/guard-ci.yml fetches the full Git history and passes the
pull request base SHA automatically. Protect .codapult/guard/ with CODEOWNERS or the equivalent
review control when policy changes require a separate approval. For example, a repository can add
.codapult/guard/* @architecture-owners to CODEOWNERS. Guard reports the policy change; the
hosting platform enforces reviewer authorization.
To make policy changes fail this invocation explicitly, add:
codapult-guard verify --policy-base "$BASE_SHA" --fail-on-policy-change
This is useful for a dedicated policy-review gate. It is intentionally separate from using the base policy for source verification, so teams can choose how their protected review workflow handles an approved policy update.
See the extension map for the supported AI-host, CI/PR, policy-pack, tool adapter, approval-governance, and observability integrations.
Copy the consumer workflow into a project that has installed and initialized Guard:
cp node_modules/@codapult/guard/docs/guard-ci.yml .github/workflows/guard.yml
Or copy it from docs/guard-ci.yml. It runs project verification and exports
Guard findings as SARIF for GitHub code scanning. Pull requests install dependencies without
lifecycle scripts and use deterministic Guard checks without executing PR-owned scripts; trusted
pushes may run the configured project checks.
The package repository separately runs its own unit, typecheck, build, and packaging checks in
.github/workflows/ci.yml, while the fixture workflow tests Guard on
real project shapes.
Use analyze --refresh after a structural change. doctor --fix-cache removes only the disposable
discovery cache; it does not change rules, contracts, baseline, or source files.
Guard state is safe for concurrent CLI/MCP readers and writers: derived facts are published as an
atomic generation, policy updates use revisions, and short write contention is waited out. A
process that dies while holding the state lock is detected by its local PID and the lock is
recovered; use --no-wait when an integration needs immediate contention feedback.
Run pnpm exec codapult-guard <command> --help for command-specific options.
Every verify run also writes a local manifest under
.codapult/guard/history/runs/<run-id>.json. It records stage durations, the outcome, and the
policy gate that decided the result. It also records the effective policy revision and fingerprint;
when a base ref was supplied, it records the ref and whether the working-tree policy differed.
When an approved policy decision caused the current policy, the manifest also retains its decision
ID, making the relationship traversable from approval to verification. The governance command
audits this metadata and reports missing or overlapping declared actors. It contains no source code
or external telemetry. These manifests make a failed run explainable without turning Guard into a
production tracing system or an identity/signature ledger.
The manifest also contains a verification-receipt object. It is a compact, machine-readable
record of the commit, policy base and fingerprint, decision IDs, check statuses, finding counts,
contract issues, waiver state, and Guard version. It intentionally excludes command output and
source code. The receipt describes what Guard decided; it is not a cryptographic signature or proof
of CI identity. When a policy base is supplied, it separates the base diff from dirty working-tree
files so local verification cannot silently present an incomplete change set.
The repository validates the product through multiple layers:
Run the maintainer checks locally:
pnpm test
pnpm test:guard:golden
pnpm test:guard:fixtures
pnpm test:guard:fixtures:regression
pnpm release:check
Starting a SaaS from scratch? Codapult is a production-ready Next.js SaaS foundation built for AI-assisted development — with MCP context, built-in AI, modular architecture, and the source code under your control.
MIT. See LICENSE.
Local-first architecture guardrails for JavaScript and TypeScript projects, with first-class support for Next.js SaaS and AI-assisted development
{ "mcpServers": { "codapult-guard": { "command": "npx", "args": [ "-y", "@codapult/[email protected]" ] } }}Инструменты
Списка инструментов пока нет. У удалённых серверов он появляется после первой проверки состояния.
FAQ
Скопируйте на этой странице конфигурацию stdio для Cursor, Claude Desktop, Claude Code или VS Code. Она использует установку издателя, а не прокси PlugMCP.
В этой записи не указано обязательных переменных окружения.
@codapult/guard работает локально через stdio.
Последняя проверка: 2026-11-13. Local-first architecture guardrails for JavaScript and TypeScript projects, with first-class support for Next.js SaaS and AI-assisted development