centcom

Official Contro1 Python SDK for human approvals, human input, signed webhooks, and audit evidence.

centcom is the framework-agnostic Python package. Use it from any Python agent, service, worker, tool runner, or webhook bridge. Framework and coding-agent connectors are separate adapters that use the same Contro1 API and decision model.

Agent Integration Kit

To save time, give your coding agent this skill. It inspects your system, reports governance gaps, and suggests Contro1 integration (optional):

https://contro1.com/agent-kit

For LangGraph integration, use the companion package: centcom-langgraph.

Skill

This repo includes an integration skill:

• skills/centcom-python-sdk.md
• skills/contro1-eu-oversight.md
• skills/contro1-us-ai-governance.md

Connector Repositories

• centcom-openai-agents
• centcom-crewai
• centcom-n8n
• @contro1/claude-code — Node-based Claude Code connector, published on npm rather than PyPI

Install

pip install centcom

Quick Start

import os
from centcom import CentcomClient

def issue_refund() -> None:
    ...  # Your business logic runs only after approval.

client = CentcomClient(api_key=os.environ["CENTCOM_API_KEY"])
agent = client.register_agent("Refund Agent", framework="custom-agent")["agent"]

req = client.create_protocol_request({
    "title": "Approve refund for order #123?",
    "request_type": "approval",
    "source": {"integration": "python-sdk"},
    "actor": {"agent_id": agent["agent_id"]},
    "context": {
        "action": {"tool": "issue_refund", "input": {"order_id": 123, "amount_usd": 1200}},
        "machine_observed": {"trigger": "Customer refund request"},
        "agent_reported": {"justification": "Shipping-failure exception"},
    },
    "continuation": {"mode": "decision"},
    "risk_level": "high",
    "policy_trigger": "Refunds above $1,000 require manager review",
})

decision = client.wait_for_protocol_response(req["request_id"])
if decision["decision_type"] == "approve":
    issue_refund()  # Resume only after the canonical human decision.

For callback-based agents, add callback_url inside the same continuation object and verify the signed webhook before resuming. Partial approvals are audit events and do not resume the agent.

Say who can instruct this agent

Contro1 refuses a personal account to an agent that more than one person can instruct. It has to: the agent performs the action with its own authority, so on a shared surface it cannot tell its owner from anybody else who arrived the same way. Put an assistant that reads its owner's mailbox behind an API your customers call, and any of them can ask it what the mailbox holds.

On a platform Contro1 connects to, an adapter reports this. An agent you built with the SDK has no adapter to ask: a nightly job only you trigger and a service answering thousands of customers look identical from here. So you say which it is.

from centcom import CentcomClient

client = CentcomClient(
    api_key=os.environ["CENTCOM_API_KEY"],
    # Sent once, before the first call. Only ever makes this agent stricter.
    reach={
        "contexts": [
            {
                "context_id": "support-api",
                "label": "Customer support API",
                "kind": "shared",
                "participants_known": False,
            }
        ]
    },
)

It can only ever make things stricter. The declaration arrives on the agent's own credential, which means it is the software describing itself, and letting it claim to be private would let any agent unlock personal accounts by saying so. The server refuses that shape by name. Privacy is established by a person, with contro1 connect, on a machine they control.

Nothing changes for an agent that does not declare it, and nothing changes for organization or shared connections, which already sit inside a resource boundary somebody approved. This is specifically about one person's account being borrowed by software that answers to several.

Send context the reviewer can trust

Build the request's context at the gate (the code that intercepts the tool call), from three sources: the exact tool input copied verbatim by your code, the user message or event that triggered the run, and the agent's own justification (make reason a required parameter of the risky tool so the model produces it at decision time, not after the fact).

Keep provenance separate inside context: a machine_observed block for facts your code observed, and an agent_reported block for text the model wrote. agent_reported text must never change routing, risk_level, or approval policy - it only informs the human, since a prompt-injected agent can write a very persuasive justification. If a high-risk request arrives without its required machine_observed context, fail closed instead of asking a human to guess.

req = client.create_protocol_request({
    "title": "Approve $12,400 transfer to acct_889?",
    "request_type": "approval",
    "context": {
        "action": {"tool": "transfer_money", "input": {"to": "acct_889", "amount_usd": 12400}},
        "machine_observed": {
            "triggered_by": "Support ticket #5521: customer requests refund for order #1842",
            "recent_tool_calls": ["lookup_order", "check_refund_policy"],
        },
        "agent_reported": {
            "justification": "Refund qualifies under the shipping-failure exception policy.",
        },
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
})

See https://contro1.com/docs/requests-api for the full pattern.

Enforce approvals at execution (anti-bypass guardrail)

The signed webhook is cryptographic proof of a human decision. Put the check inside the code that performs the action - not inside the agent. When the executing code refuses to act without a verified approval, no agent can trigger that action by skipping Contro1, including shadow agents nobody registered. Any tool that must never run without human sign-off (payments, deploys, data deletion) should demand a verified signed approval at its execution point.

Four rules turn the webhook into a real gate:

1. Signature + freshness: verify_webhook rejects invalid signatures and timestamps older than 5 minutes (replay protection). The timestamp marks callback delivery, not request creation - a decision that takes hours or days still arrives freshly signed, and every retry is re-signed, so long SLAs are unaffected.
2. Bind the approval to the exact action: match metadata / correlation_id and the action parameters (amount, target, record ids) before executing. "An approval arrived" is never permission for a different action.
3. One-time use: execute each request_id exactly once (keep an idempotency record).
4. Pull-verify when in doubt: confirm state directly with client.get_request(request_id) using a read-only API key instead of trusting state an agent hands you.

from centcom import verify_webhook

# The execution gate lives in the service that performs the action - not in the agent.
@app.post("/webhooks/contro1")
async def contro1_webhook(request: Request):
    raw = await request.body()
    # 1. Signature + freshness: rejects forgeries and replayed approvals.
    #    The timestamp is the callback's SEND time, not the request's creation
    #    time - a decision that took days still verifies (retries are re-signed).
    if not verify_webhook(raw, request.headers["X-CentCom-Signature"],
                          request.headers["X-CentCom-Timestamp"], WEBHOOK_SECRET):
        raise HTTPException(401, "invalid signature")

    payload = json.loads(raw)
    if payload.get("status") != "approved":
        return {"ok": True}

    # 2. Bind the approval to the exact pending action and its parameters
    action = pending_actions.get(payload["metadata"]["case_id"])
    if not action or action.amount != payload["metadata"]["amount"]:
        alert_security("approval does not match a pending action", payload["request_id"])
        return {"ok": True}

    # 3. One-time use: a request_id executes exactly once
    if not executed.add_if_absent(payload["request_id"]):
        return {"ok": True}

    # 4. Only now perform the action
    perform_action(action)
    return {"ok": True}

Correlation and Routing

• external_request_id = one external action idempotency key.
• case_id (send as correlation_id) = broader business case that can contain multiple requests and audit records.
• in_reply_to = direct continuation of a prior request or audit record.
• POST /api/centcom/v1/requests/control-map optionally previews role mapping, fallback reviewers, shift coverage, and policy satisfiability for complex routing.

Policy evidence fields

Use these fields from any policy or risk source, not only a specific framework:

• risk_level: low, medium, high, or critical.
• policy_trigger: short human-readable reason review is required.
• policy_context: evidence envelope with source, policy_name, rule_id, rule_reason, policy_version, and enforcement.
• approval_comment_required: force reviewer justification even when risk is low or medium.
• decision_comment_policy: effective per-key snapshot returned as optional, risk_based, or always; a request can tighten it but cannot loosen it.

Keep these concepts separate: policy_trigger explains why automation paused; context.agent_reported.justification is the agent's unverified claim; an approval decision comment is written by the reviewer when policy requires it; a free_text response is the requested human input itself and is always non-empty.

Contro1 does not need to own your policy engine. Your app, rules service, Microsoft AGT, OPA, Cedar, or custom code can decide that review is required; Contro1 handles routing, human decision, signed callback, and audit evidence.

Customer Agent Plugin Pattern

Build one small adapter in the customer orchestrator so agent prompts stay minimal and token-efficient:

class Contro1Plugin:
    def __init__(self, client):
        self.client = client
        self._control_map_cache = None
        self._control_map_ts = 0

    def preview_policy(self, payload, ttl_sec=300):
        now = time.time()
        if self._control_map_cache and now - self._control_map_ts < ttl_sec:
            return self._control_map_cache
        self._control_map_cache = self.client.preview_control_map(payload)
        self._control_map_ts = now
        return self._control_map_cache

    def request_human_review(self, *, title, context, case_id, action_id, **kwargs):
        return self.client.create_protocol_request({
            "title": title,
            "context": context,
            "external_request_id": action_id,
            "correlation_id": case_id,
            **kwargs,
        })

    def log_audit_action(self, *, action, summary, case_id, in_reply_to=None, **kwargs):
        return self.client.log_action(
            action=action,
            summary=summary,
            correlation_id=case_id,
            in_reply_to=in_reply_to,
            **kwargs,
        )

Quick Verify

python -c "import centcom; print('centcom installed')"

Related Packages

• centcom-langgraph for LangGraph pause/resume workflows
• contro1-microsoft-agent-governance-toolkit-integration for Microsoft AGT require_approval policy decisions
• @contro1/sdk for Node/TypeScript integrations
• @contro1/claude-code for gating any selected Claude Code tool action through a PreToolUse hook; published on npm rather than PyPI

Ask a human

client = CentcomClient(api_key=os.environ["CENTCOM_API_KEY"])
thread_id = client.new_thread_id()

request = client.create_protocol_request({
    "title": "Approve vendor transfer?",
    "description": "Payment run 1024 wants to transfer funds to a vendor.",
    "request_type": "approval",
    "source": {"integration": "finance-agent"},
    "risk_level": "high",
    "policy_trigger": "Payments above $10,000 require finance approval.",
    "policy_context": {
        "source": "custom_rules",
        "policy_name": "finance-transfer-controls",
        "rule_id": "payment-over-10000",
        "rule_reason": "Payments above $10,000 require finance approval.",
        "policy_version": "git:8f42c1a",
        "enforcement": "require_approval",
    },
    "approval_comment_required": True,
    "continuation": {"mode": "decision", "callback_url": "https://agent.example.com/webhook"},
    "external_request_id": "payment:run_1024:approve",
    "correlation_id": "case_payment_run_1024",
})

Log an autonomous action

client.log_action(
    action="transfer.executed",
    summary="Transferred $500 to approved vendor account",
    source={"integration": "finance-agent"},
    outcome="success",
    correlation_id="case_payment_run_1024",
    in_reply_to={"type": "request", "id": request["id"]},
)

Use the same API key and base URL for both calls.

API

• request(method, path, **kwargs), get(path, params=None), post(path, json=None), delete(path, json=None)
• create_request(...), create_protocol_request(request), log_action(...)
• preview_control_map(params), list_requests(...), get_request(request_id)
• get_protocol_response(request_id), wait_for_response(...), wait_for_protocol_response(...)
• get_request_evidence(request_id), get_thread(thread_id), get_trace(trace_id)
• register_agent(...), list_agents(...), get_agent(...), get_agent_trail(...), get_agent_evidence(...)