Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Agent authentication review

Verify the identity checks that precede agent access

An agent connector introduces a new login or token-validation path. The decision is how to verify the identity checks that precede agent access. The work begins with your actual workflow and looks for the evidence that separates intended behaviour from a consequential exception. It is particularly relevant to security engineers and identity service owners. A useful outcome is an explicit account of what was examined, what remains uncertain, and which decision the evidence can support.

Book a 30 minute readiness callBrowse this capability group

The identity and delegated authority relationship

  1. Starting evidenceAuthentication sequence diagrams

    Establish the basis for token issuer.

  2. Decision boundaryIntended audience

    Bind the credential to the receiving service.

  3. Decision artefactAuthentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

Conceptual model. Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.

Decision

Frame the decision around token issuer

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceToken issuer
Inspect authentication sequence diagrams for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceIntended audience
Inspect token validation configuration for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceVerifier decision
Inspect failed-login records for the relevant constraint or observation.
Read each criterion against the available evidence before deciding that additional work is needed.

The decision is how to verify the identity checks that precede agent access. This is relevant to security engineers and identity service owners when an agent connector introduces a new login or token-validation path. Name the affected workflow, the consequence of a wrong decision, and the owner who can act on the result. The initial discussion should establish which evidence is already available and which uncertainty is material enough to investigate.

The specific failure hypothesis is that a token issued for one audience is accepted by an unrelated service. It remains a hypothesis until examined in the deployment. Existing internal tests or operating records may already resolve it; identify the uncovered question before commissioning additional work.

Mechanism

A valid signature does not settle the audience check

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionToken issuer
Check the source trusted to assert identity.
Crossing or choiceIntended audience
Bind the credential to the receiving service.
Consequence or decisionVerifier decision
Retain expired and mismatched rejection evidence.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Authentication review focuses on the verifier’s decision. Identify trusted issuers, expected audiences, validity checks and the binding between the presented credential and its caller. Do not infer correct validation from the fact that a credential was signed somewhere in the identity system.

The review should inspect validation expectations and exercise approved invalid, expired and mismatched identity cases. Identify the normal route, relevant exceptions and the authoritative record of the outcome. Inspect the relevant business-system record, enforcement event or process evidence alongside any reported status. Keep incomplete cases visible, with an explanation of what their absence prevents the owner from concluding.

The tradeoff to make explicit

For this decision, strict verification rejects ambiguous identities but needs explicit treatment of clock and availability issues. Compare the available design or operating choices against the same intended outcome. If one option removes a required control or changes the task boundary, describe that difference before treating its apparent simplicity, speed or lower effort as an improvement. The decision should expose the tradeoff instead of burying it in an aggregate score.

Preparation

Connect the working inputs to the boundary being examined

Evidence packet for token issuer

Illustrative working format

BasisAuthentication sequence diagrams
Identify the expected principal, audience, and verifier response to invalid evidence.
ContextToken validation configuration
Identify the expected principal, audience, and verifier response to invalid evidence.
ObservationFailed-login records
Retain the observed conditions and distinguish gaps from contrary evidence.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with authentication sequence diagrams, token validation configuration and failed-login records. Identify the owner, revision and operating context of each source. Sanitised examples may support initial design, but differences from actual conditions should remain explicit. Where direct access is unsuitable, a customer-controlled evidence or execution route may be considered, with agreed handling and retention.

The scope also needs the identity control owner, agreed expectations for a representative subject-action-resource case, and the authority to inspect the relevant boundary. Specify what evidence would distinguish the failure in which a token issued for one audience is accepted by an unrelated service from acceptable behaviour. If stakeholders disagree about intended behaviour, resolve the interpretation before classifying the observed difference as a defect.

How the work proceeds

Carry token issuer through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsAuthentication sequence diagrams

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipIntended audience

    Apply the scoped check to verifier decision.

  3. Retain the findingAuthentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour

    Record the evidence, open dependencies, and the owner’s next decision.

Proposed sequence; resolve interpretation or access gaps before relying on the next step.

Map principals, resources and authority

Reconcile authentication sequence diagrams, token validation configuration and failed-login records with the workflow described by security engineers and identity service owners. Identify the initiating actor, executing workload, target resource and component that grants access. Prepare paired cases that differ in one material authority condition, such as assignment, tenant, expiry or approval. The preparation output is an action map showing which permission is expected at each boundary and which records can verify it.

Exercise and review the authority path

Use synthetic credentials or approved fixtures to examine expired, malformed and context-mismatched cases. Verify failures at the actual endpoint, including alternate routes and gateways. Keep authentication failures separate from later denials caused by insufficient permission.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into an authentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour. Distinguish an identity-verification problem from an excessive permission, lost delegation context or delayed withdrawal. Assign the proposed change to the component that controls the affected action. Before recommending wider use, identify the allowed case and denied counterpart that would demonstrate the revised boundary without breaking legitimate work.

Indicative artefact

Make the authentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour usable by its owner

Authentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldAuthentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Annotated fieldIntended audience evidence
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Annotated fieldVerifier decision decision
Name the unresolved condition, next action, and accountable owner.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is an authentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour. Supporting material may include selected cases, configuration or process records, evidence references, a disagreement log and prioritised actions. Retain the case selection rationale and material disagreements alongside the result; otherwise the result may be mistaken for complete coverage.

Illustrative scenario

Examine verifier decision through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationToken issuer

    A gateway accepts a token issued for a different service.

  2. Question to examineIntended audience

    Present a correctly signed token with the wrong audience.

  3. Conditional next actionVerifier decision

    Treat resource-specific rejection as part of authentication evidence.

Fictional example. No executed test, customer engagement, or measured outcome is implied.

Consider a fictional situation: a tool gateway accepts a validly signed token without checking that it was issued for that gateway. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

In the gateway example, compare a credential intended for that gateway with one intended for a different service. If both are accepted, the finding concerns verifier scope. Changing the agent’s role permissions may not correct the authentication defect.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryToken issuer
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteAuthentication sequence diagrams
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitAuthentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour
Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.
Bring the triggering change and existing evidence; resolve the dependency that could alter the decision.

Identity design and technical testing do not establish a legal mandate or resolve a disputed business authorisation. Qualified IAM review is needed for material control conclusions. Any engagement depends on an agreed scope, qualified team, authorised access and confirmed availability. Bring the affected workflow, its current configuration or process, the triggering change and the evidence already available. The immediate scope question is prompted by the situation in which an agent connector introduces a new login or token-validation path; confirm which missing observation would change the owner’s next action.

Ways to engage

Related engagement scopes

Agent Release Readiness Review

The Agent Release Readiness Review is a fixed-scope, three-week independent test of one AI agent workflow that shows a release board what the agent does, what it is allowed to do and what happens when it is wrong, and ends in a signed recommendation.

3 weeksRead about this offer

AI Agent Authorisation Review

Make delegated authority inspectable. Trace who an agent acts for, what it can access and how that access can be withdrawn.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Runtime Security Review

Make every delegation explicit. Examine who the agent acts for, where it can execute and which tools it can reach when instructions alone are not enough.

Read about this offer

Continue exploring

Related insights and resources

Whitepaper15 MIN READ

Designing agent authority boundaries

Turn agent permissions into an enforceable action contract. Separate a model's suggestion from a resource owner's authorisation, test the boundary, and make delegation and revocation reviewable.

Agent security6 MIN READ

The permission boundary behind every agent action

An agent can only be evaluated in the context of what its tools allow. Examine identity, delegated authority and action boundaries before you put a workflow in motion.

Whitepaper5 MIN READ

Before your agent can act, define its authority

A working paper for the moment an AI system moves from advice to action. Map identity, permissions, approvals and recovery into an authority model your team can review and test.

A little more clarity

Questions to consider.

Start with the questions that shape a better decision.

How is authentication review different from permission review?

Authentication verifies the caller's identity under defined trust rules. Authorisation decides what that caller may do to a resource in context. A system can authenticate correctly while granting excessive permissions.

Which configuration records define trusted authentication?

Start with authentication sequence diagrams, token validation configuration and failed-login records. Record their revision, owner and relationship to the intended workflow. Missing context should be identified before interpreting outcomes; a sanitised fixture is useful only when its relevant differences from the operating case are understood.

How should wrong-audience credentials be tested?

Inspect validation expectations and exercise approved invalid, expired and mismatched identity cases. Observe the authenticated principal, mandate and resource decision separately. Include a permitted action and a denied counterpart so the review can establish whether authority is narrow enough without making legitimate work impossible.

What should an authentication findings matrix show?

The proposed output is an authentication findings matrix linked to specific verifier behaviour. Include the selected conditions, supporting observations, unresolved differences and next decision. A reviewer should be able to follow each important conclusion back to its evidence and understand the limits without depending on an undocumented explanation from the author.

When should verifier rules differ by endpoint?

Use endpoint-specific verifier rules when services have different audiences, issuers or caller expectations. A credential valid for one service should not be accepted elsewhere merely because its signature verifies.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from security engineers and identity service owners may already be sufficient. In that case, capture the decision, unresolved limitations and the change that would require another review. Additional assessment should address a real gap.

What would make the findings inconclusive?

Missing authentication sequence diagrams, token validation configuration and failed-login records can prevent a reliable interpretation, depending on the case. Record the specific missing observation and its implication. The owner can supply evidence, narrow the claim or defer the dependent decision; an incomplete case should not silently be counted as a pass.

Start with the decision you need to make.

Tell us about the agent workflow you want reviewed, and where you need greater clarity. Scope and availability are confirmed together.

Book a 30 minute readiness call Get the agent release checklist

Connected disciplines

Agent authorisation modelling

Define which resources and actions an agent may use in context. The review connects resource models, action catalogues, subject attributes and policy decision records to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Delegated authority design

Make delegated authority explicit and bounded. The review connects delegation records, action limits, expiry rules and authority transfer diagrams to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

User-to-agent delegation controls

Preserve a person's intended limits when an agent acts for them. The review connects user journeys, approval records, consent text and action parameters to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.