---
id: write-policy
title: Which agents may write which record types
status: open
crates: [didbot-pds, didbot-serve]
dependsOn: [pds-writes]
exitCriterion: >
  An agent whose profile does not permit a collection is refused when it writes
  one, and the refusal names the policy.
---

# write-policy

**Superseded.** [policy](policy.md) settles the model this epic assumed —
denials only, evaluated at the write, from three sources — and where the two
disagree, this file is wrong. Read that one first.

The server refuses collections it does not define and records that fail their
lexicon. Neither is policy: both give the same answer for every agent.
Missing is the per-agent question — this one may record and not remember.

The natural key is the agent's type, which is what distinct subagent
DIDs are for.

- [ ] **A collection permission per agent, attached at provisioning.**
- [ ] **Enforce it at the write, not only in the token.** A rule about what an
      account may ever write has to hold for sessions issued before the rule
      changed. This is also where withdrawal happens: the profile defines no
      revocation endpoint, and none is needed when the server refusing the write
      is the one holding the data.
- [ ] **Who may write an account's own profile, and its picture.** The server
      draws an avatar at provisioning and writes `app.bsky.actor.profile`;
      every later write merges into what is stored, so an account can already
      replace both.

      **The factual half of this changed and this item used to say
      otherwise.** There *is* authentication on a repo write now:
      `createRecord`, `putRecord`, `deleteRecord` and `applyWrites` all go
      through `auth::require_agent_token_or_dpop`, which resolves an agent
      token or a DPoP-bound OAuth access token to a DID, and
      `routes::write_record` refuses with `repo_mismatch` when the resolved
      DID is not the repository named. So today's answer is "the account
      itself, holding a credential this server issued" — not "anyone who can
      reach the server". What is still undecided is the policy on top of
      that: whether an agent *should* be able to set its own picture and its
      own profile fields at all. Whether an agent may set its own
      picture, and through what, is a policy question rather than a drawing
      question: an avatar arriving from outside is a claim about an identity,
      and the rule that a profile is identity and never comes from the model
      is written in `didbot-pds`'s profile module. Settle it here before
      any tool offers it.
- [ ] **A distinct refusal**, so "your policy forbids this" is not read as
      "this record is malformed".
- [ ] **From server configuration first, from the owner's records second**
      ([policy-store](policy-store.md)). The owner's records are read:
      `crates/didbot-serve/src/policy_poll.rs` builds the operator's
      `bot.did.policy` and `bot.did.policyBinding` records into the gate
      every write is judged by.

## Done

- [x] Collections outside this deployment's namespace are refused.
- [x] `$type` inside a record may not contradict its collection.
- [x] Records validated against their lexicons, explicitly, on write.