Integration Discussion: AURA Open Protocol × ECC

[luisllaver]

Integrating affaan-m/ECC with AURA Open Protocol

Enhancing Agent Performance with AURA's Identity and Reputation System

We're exploring the possibility of integrating affaan-m/ECC with AURA Open Protocol to leverage its identity, reputation, and escrow features. This integration would enable affaan-m/ECC agents to benefit from AURA's trustless reputation system, which provides a weighted average of 8 reputation dimensions (task completion, delivery speed, output quality, honesty, financial integrity, security compliance, collaboration, and dispute history).

Integration Overview

The integration would involve creating an adapter/plugin that allows affaan-m/ECC agents to interact with AURA's API. This would enable affaan-m/ECC to:

• Use AURA's DID (Decentralized Identifier) for identity management
• Leverage AURA's reputation system to establish trust with other agents
• Utilize AURA's trustless USDC escrow for secure transactions on Base L2

Community Interest

We're interested in hearing from the community about the potential benefits and challenges of this integration. Is there interest in developing an adapter/plugin to enable affaan-m/ECC agents to interact with AURA's API? Please share your thoughts and ideas on how this integration could be achieved.

For more information on AURA Open Protocol, please visit our documentation: https://dev.auraopenprotocol.org

[affaan-m]

Thanks for opening this. The clean path is an external ECC adapter first, not core coupling.

For 2.0, the boundary I would want is:

• harness-neutral plugin/skill surface
• optional AURA identity/reputation lookup behind explicit config
• no escrow or wallet signing inside ECC core
• test fixtures plus a small threat model before it is listed as supported

If you want to draft it, open a small proposal with the API calls, auth model, data stored, and failure modes. I can review that and route it against the partner/integration lane.

[luisllaver]

Thanks @affaan-m — that boundary is exactly right, and it matches how the SDK already ships: external adapter, zero core coupling.

Surface — harness-neutral integrations/aura module. One read-only call; no escrow or wallet signing touches ECC core.

API calls — GET /check?did=... → {verdict, reason, score?, dimensions?}, zero-auth, verdict ∈ trusted|caution|high_risk|new|unknown. Optional opt-in POST /v1/reputation/{did}/observe to write an outcome back, gated behind explicit config, off by default.

Auth — none for /check (public read). Write-path needs an operator-supplied AURA DID + signing key, never bundled.

Data stored — nothing new in ECC; the adapter holds only the counterparty DID being checked. No PII, no payloads leave the process except the DID.

Failure modes — endpoint down/timeout → unknown, and the operator's policy decides (default fail-closed on high_risk+unknown). Never blocks ECC if AURA is unreachable unless opted in.

Threat model + fixtures — VCR-style fixture suite against /check (one per verdict class) plus a threat-model note (spoofed DID, stale verdict, endpoint MITM).

I'll open it as a draft PR against an integrations/ lane so you can route it. Anything you'd add to the boundary before I draft?

[luisllaver]

Opened the draft PR as promised — #2026.

integrations/aura/ — exactly the boundary above: external adapter, read-only GET /check, no core coupling, no escrow/wallet signing, fail-closed by default. Pure stdlib, zero deps. before_settle(did) raises on high_risk/unknown; aura_verdict(did) returns the typed verdict. 20 offline tests (one per verdict class + gate + unreachable path) and a THREAT_MODEL.md with 6 failure modes.

Left it as draft so you can route it against the partner/integration lane and request any boundary/naming changes before merge. Happy to adjust to ECC conventions.