Question: signed receipts for MCP/Codex bridge actions?

[cullenmeyers]

Hi,

I found codex-mac-bridge while researching MCP projects where agents can invoke tools that affect files, repos, shell sessions, or coding workflows.

I’m building AgentReceipt, a small open-source project for structured, verifiable action records around MCP/tool calls. The idea is not to replace logs, tmux history, or Git history, but to create signed receipts for cases where someone may later need to prove which caller/agent invoked which tool, with what args/session context, and what the bridge/server attested.

Your project seemed relevant because an MCP bridge to Codex CLI can sit between an agent and a remote coding environment, where actions may affect code, files, commands, or long-running sessions.

I’m curious: for MCP-to-Codex bridge actions, would portable signed receipts add anything beyond tmux logs, Git history, or normal session logs, or would that feel redundant?

Repo for context: https://github.com/cullenmeyers/AgentReceipt

No pressure — I’m mainly trying to understand whether this receipt layer is useful for real MCP bridge/workflow tools.

[freeze1999]

good question. for single-user single-mac, bridge.log + tmux history + git is already overkill, signed receipts don't add much. the gap would be if this ever opens to multi-user or multi-mac: then you need cryptographic proof of 'who asked for what' across trust boundaries, not just a log file anyone can edit. checked out boundaryattest, clean api. if you want to test against a real mcp bridge later, ping me.