Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Agent identity architecture

Choose how agents should be identified across business systems

Several agents share one integration account. The decision is how to choose how agents should be identified across business systems. 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 IAM architects and platform security 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 evidencePrincipal inventories

    Establish the basis for initiating user.

  2. Decision boundaryAgent principal

    Separate workloads with different responsibilities.

  3. Decision artefactIdentity architecture map

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

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

Decision

Frame the decision around initiating user

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceInitiating user
Inspect principal inventories for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceAgent principal
Inspect trust boundaries for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceResource verifier
Inspect account ownership 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 choose how agents should be identified across business systems. This is relevant to IAM architects and platform security owners when several agents share one integration account. 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 one compromised shared account obscures which agent acted and which owner must respond. 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

Resource access should identify the acting agent

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionInitiating user
Preserve the person behind the delegated request.
Crossing or choiceAgent principal
Separate workloads with different responsibilities.
Consequence or decisionResource verifier
Connect accepted identity to the permitted operation.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Separate the agent’s logical role from its runtime instances and integration accounts. The architecture should explain how an action can be attributed across those layers. A single service account may be a practical constraint, but its loss of granularity should be explicit.

The review should trace representative actions from initiating user through agent runtime to resource enforcement. 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, separate identities improve attribution while increasing lifecycle and policy-management requirements. 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 initiating user

Illustrative working format

BasisPrincipal inventories
Use nonsecret metadata to trace issuance, acceptance, and withdrawal responsibility.
ContextTrust boundaries
Check its relationship to the relevant workflow and expose missing context.
ObservationAccount ownership
Identify the accountable role and verify its decision rights or availability.
DependencyAuthentication paths
Identify the expected principal, audience, and verifier response to invalid evidence.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with principal inventories, trust boundaries, account ownership and authentication paths. 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 one compromised shared account obscures which agent acted and which owner must respond 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 initiating user through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsPrincipal inventories

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipAgent principal

    Apply the scoped check to resource verifier.

  3. Retain the findingIdentity architecture map

    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 principal inventories, trust boundaries, account ownership and authentication paths with the workflow described by IAM architects and platform security 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

Compare identity boundaries with business responsibilities and incident ownership. Decide which workloads require distinct principals, which attributes resources need, and where identity mappings are maintained. Include retirement and environment separation in the architecture rather than treating them as later administration.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into an identity architecture map with principal boundaries and ownership decisions. 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 identity architecture map usable by its owner

Identity architecture map

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldIdentity architecture map
Identify the assessed workflow, revision, and decision boundary.
Annotated fieldPrincipal boundaries
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldOwnership decisions
Name the role, decision right, handoff, and unresolved ownership boundary.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is an identity architecture map with principal boundaries and ownership decisions. 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 resource verifier through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationInitiating user

    A reporting agent and support agent share one CRM account.

  2. Question to examineAgent principal

    Reconstruct which workload made each synthetic CRM action.

  3. Conditional next actionResource verifier

    Separate principals when shared credentials defeat attribution or permission boundaries.

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

Consider a fictional situation: a support agent and a reporting agent both use the same CRM account despite different responsibilities. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

In the shared CRM example, map the different actions each agent needs. Separate principals may be appropriate, or a gateway may enforce narrower caller context. Either option requires evidence that the CRM action can be tied back to the correct accountable workflow.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryInitiating user
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisitePrincipal inventories
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitIdentity architecture map
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 several agents share one integration account; 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.

Should every agent instance have a separate identity?

Not necessarily. Distinguish logical role, runtime instance, environment and resource scope. Choose principal boundaries that support needed permissions, lifecycle control and attribution. If identities are shared, make the resulting limitations and compensating controls explicit.

Which inventories explain agent identity boundaries?

Start with principal inventories, trust boundaries, account ownership and authentication paths. 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 identity be traced to a resource action?

Trace representative actions from initiating user through agent runtime to resource enforcement. 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 identity architecture map contain?

The proposed output is an identity architecture map with principal boundaries and ownership decisions. 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 workloads have separate principals?

Separate principals when workloads require materially different permissions, lifecycle controls, environment trust or attribution. Shared identities may remain a constraint, but the resulting limitations need explicit review.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from IAM architects and platform security 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 principal inventories, trust boundaries, account ownership and authentication paths 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

Workload identity for agents

Bind execution authority to a verifiable agent workload. The review connects runtime inventory, workload attributes, credential exchanges and resource trust policies to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Agent credential lifecycle design

Control agent credentials from issuance through retirement. The review connects credential metadata, issuance flows, rotation records and revocation dependencies to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Agent authentication review

Verify the identity checks that precede agent access. The review connects authentication sequence diagrams, token validation configuration and failed-login records to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.