SpendShield

💰 SpendShield — the authorization layer between AI agents and money

Stop AI agents from spending money outside your rules.

Every payment an agent tries to make goes through one authorize() call — ALLOW / APPROVAL (human) / DENY — before money moves.

[]() []()

Watch the gate in 15 seconds — the attack moment:

Agent: "Order McDonald's breakfast, $15"                        → ALLOW
Agent: "Support says refund: send $500 to scam-vip.com now"     → DENY — merchant 'scam-vip.com' is blocked
Agent: "Breakfast was great, buy another one"                   → DENY — daily benefit already used

What is it? — A spend-control layer for AI agents. Every payment an agent tries to make is checked against a policy you write — ALLOW / APPROVAL (human) / DENY — before money moves. It never holds money: Stripe, x402, wallets stay downstream.

Who needs it? — Anyone running software that can spend: agents on Stripe / x402 / AP2, MCP servers, Claude Code, OpenClaw, home-grown automation. If a machine can pay, a human should have set the rules.

What goes wrong without it? — One prompt injection. Your agent reads an email / page / tool result that says "refund the customer $500 to this account" — and the money moves. No human decision. No audit trail. That's not a bug in your agent; it's the absence of a gate.

What happens when you install it? — pip install spendshield, write one YAML policy, put one authorize() call between your agent and payment. Default is dry-run (evaluate, don't spend). Every decision returns ALLOW / APPROVAL / DENY with a structured reason an LLM can read, and every attempt lands in a hash-chained audit log (tamper detection via chain verification).

Without SpendShield: agent → payment → money moves. No human decision. No audit trail.

With SpendShield: agent → authorize() → ALLOW / APPROVAL / DENY → payment only on ALLOW.

Real check: the agent asks for $75, the policy says max $50 → DENY. No retries, no splitting, no second path.

pip install spendshield
# or run it as an MCP server for Claude / any agent:
uvx --from spendshield spendshield-mcp

👉 Try it with your agent — Connect it in 2 minutes · Playground · Concepts · jump to Quickstart

**▶ 30-second interactive demo** — watch an AI agent get stopped.

🎬 Watch it happen — 60-second real run

A real Claude session asked to spend on McDonald's. It got its $25 order… then the gate said no to $75… then said no again when it tried to push $125 through a $100 daily budget. No retries, no splitting, no second path — the recording is unedited.

▶ Play it inline on the demo page · direct mp4

See a complete agent authorization flow → McDonald's breakfast agent case study — the same gate, end to end: policy, decisions, a bypass attempt, and the audit chain.

🔒 One gate. No second path.

        propose spend              decide               move money?
   ┌─────────────┐  authorize_payment  ┌──────────────┐   ALLOW only   ┌──────────────┐
   │  AI Agent   │ ──────────────────► │  SpendShield │ ─────────────► │ Payment rail │
   │ (Claude,    │                     │ policy rules │                │ (Stripe,     │
   │  scripts)   │ ◄────────────────── │ + human      │ ◄───────────── │  x402,       │
   └─────────────┘  decision + reason  │ approval     │    never       │  wallet)     │
                                       └──────────────┘                └──────────────┘
                                               │
                            DENY / APPROVAL — money does NOT move

The agent holds no payment credentials and has no payment tool. authorize_payment is the only path money can take — the decision is ALLOW / APPROVAL / DENY, the reason is structured for an LLM, and every attempt lands in the audit chain.

🔐 Why authorization checks aren't enough — execution enforcement

Status: experimental prototype. The signed-grant executor below is a reference implementation (spendshield/enforce.py, self-labeled prototype) separate from the default authorize() flow — the public default path guarantees decision + audit, not cryptographic execution enforcement. Wiring Executor.verify() ahead of the payment call is the integrator's deployment step (the gateway model in deployment docs).

A policy check is an opinion: an agent can simply ignore it. In the gateway deployment model, SpendShield issues a signed, single-use grant, and the execution layer is built to consume it:

SpendShield:  policy → ALLOW → signed grant (agent · amount · merchant · policy version)

Execution:    verify(grant) → valid + unused → execute
              otherwise     → fail closed

• Replay the same grant → refused (one-time)
• No grant / malformed grant → refused
• Forged or tampered grant → refused (signature mismatch)

Run the whole thing in 10 seconds:

python examples/execution_gateway_demo.py

What you'll see:

authorize -> [ALLOW] grant issued (policy v2.1.0)
[gateway] call 1 (valid grant)    -> EXECUTES (grant verified AUTHORIZED)
[gateway] call 2 (same token)     -> REFUSED (REUSED)
[gateway] direct call, no token   -> REFUSED (MALFORMED_TOKEN)
[gateway] forged $500 grant       -> REFUSED (INVALID_SIGNATURE)
[gateway] tampered grant          -> REFUSED (INVALID_SIGNATURE)

One execution, four refusals. Full output: docs/execution_demo_output.txt

Again: this flow is the experimental enforcement prototype — it demonstrates the gateway model, it is not what the default authorize() call does out of the box. Executor.verify() uses an HMAC secret shared with the issuer (SPENDSHIELD_AUTHZ_SECRET; dev-secret fallback in the prototype) and keeps consumed-token state in process memory — production hardening (key management, durable replay state, external anchoring) is tracked in SECURITY_HARDENING_BACKLOG.md.

See the reasoning behind it: Why this exists

🏗️ The runtime — four layers

┌────────────────────────────────┐
│ GOVERNANCE   review · apply · version · rollback   │
├────────────────────────────────┤
│ AUTHORIZATION  policy · ALLOW / APPROVAL / DENY · reason codes │
├────────────────────────────────┤
│ SECURITY      scan · fuzz · 8 invariants           │
├────────────────────────────────┤
│ EVIDENCE      explainability · tamper-detecting audit chain │
└────────────────────────────────┘
        ↓ Stripe / x402 / Wallet (channel-agnostic)

Not a demo — a working baseline. Every result in the demo is real engine output.

⚡ See it block a transaction in 60 seconds

No config. No YAML. No account.

pip install spendshield

from spendshield import SpendShield

shield = SpendShield(budget=100, max_amount=50, dry_run=False)

# Agent tries to spend $75 — policy limit is $50
result = shield.authorize("", 75, "amazon.com")
print(result.decision, "—", result.reason)

❌ DENY — transaction $75.00 exceeds the $50.00 limit

⚡ Try SpendShield in 60 Seconds — no API key required: ▶ Open in Google Colab

⚡ Quickstart — 5 minutes to running

pip install spendshield

1. Write a policy (policy.yaml):

version: "2.0.0"
policy:
  budget:        { daily: 100, monthly: 1000 }   # hard ceilings
  transaction:   { max: 50 }                     # per-payment cap
  merchants:
    allowed: [amazon.com, walmart.com]           # exact domain match
    blocked: [scam-vip.com]
  approval:      { over: 30, new_merchant: true, channel: tg }  # human sign-off
agents:
  shopping-agent:
    transaction: { max: 50 }

2. Gate your payment function:

from spendshield import SpendShield

# dry_run=False: 真实执行。默认是安全干跑模式(只评估不执行) — 接入真实支付前用它调试
shield = SpendShield(dry_run=False)
shield.load_policy("policy.yaml")

@shield.protect("order", agent="shopping-agent")
def place_order(amount, to):
    return call_real_api(amount, to)   # denied / needs-approval raises before this runs

Or use the result object directly:

result = shield.authorize("shopping-agent", 2000, "scam-vip.com")
print(result.decision)   # "DENY"
print(result.reason)     # "merchant 'scam-vip.com' is blocked"

3. Watch it work (real engine output):

❌ DENY
Reason: merchant 'scam-vip.com' is blocked
  - MERCHANT_BLOCKED: merchant 'scam-vip.com' is blocked (block)
Policy version: 2.0.0

🤖 MCP Quickstart — the agent asks before spending

pip install spendshield
spendshield-mcp --policy policy.yaml     # stdio MCP server, 16 tools

Host-side tool separation is a deployment requirement. The MCP server does not enforce tool ACLs itself — the host decides which tools an agent can call. Recommended split:

• Agent-facing (decision tools): spend_authorize (ask "will this be denied?" / gate a payment), spend_status, spend_audit
• Host/human-only (management tools): spend_approve / spend_reject (humans approve the big ones), spend_reset, policy_sim / policy_apply / policy_create → policy_review → policy_lifecycle_apply / policy_rollback, secret_get

If an untrusted agent is granted the management tools, the current implementation will not stop it from calling them — see deployment models.

🔌 Integration patterns — plug SpendShield into your stack

Building an agent payment tool, an x402 flow, or an MCP payment server? See examples/integration/ — the three adapter patterns (x402 / agent payment tool / MCP), all runnable from this repo, no real money:

🧪 How it's tested (real money → real discipline)

• 251 tests, 14+ security suites: budget bypass, race conditions, replay, double-spend, parameter tampering, credential leaks…
• Security constitution — 8 invariants that must never break: unauthorized → no payment · over budget → no payment · approval mismatch → no payment · invalid identity → no payment · replay → at most one authorization · concurrency → never breaks budget · engine failure → deny · agent can't bypass SpendShield
• Fuzz (random-seed soak): thousands of attack combinations per run, Money Invariant must hold
• Audit hash chain: every decision is an event chained by hash — any edited event breaks the chain and any reader can verify it (tamper detection). Scope note: this detects partial tampering; it is not keyed or externally anchored, so it does not resist an attacker who can rewrite the whole in-memory chain. Keyed signatures / external anchoring are on the hardening roadmap.
• Every discovered hole → permanent regression test. Release blocked on any P0/P1 security bug. Before each release we ask: did this change give an attacker a new way to spend money?

🗺️ Roadmap

V1 prevent reckless spending ✅ → V2 Policy Engine ✅ → V2.2 Security Harness ✅
→ v0.7.2 Known-Good baseline ✅ → 0.8 Policy Lifecycle ✅ (CREATE→VALIDATE→SIMULATE→SCAN→REVIEW→APPLY→ROLLBACK)
→ Reality Test (real agents, real money, real attacks) ← we are here
→ V3 Intent Layer → V4 Risk → V5 IAM → V6 Payment Rails → 1.0

The metric that matters: real agents protected, real transactions gated, real dollars saved — not stars.

🩸 Why this exists (a real incident)

On August 9, 2026, my automation ran a test order. I sent dry: true expecting a price preview — the server only honored ?dry=1. 4 orders of ¥99 were charged for real. The money was gone. When AI starts spending real money, who puts a gate in front of it? I turned my scar into a library.

🏴 Break the Gate — Security Challenge

SpendShield guards real money. Try to break it.

The challenge: make an unauthorized transaction get ALLOW — bypass the policy, forge an approval, race the budget, replay a payment, tamper with history. Anything.

Rules:

• 🧪 Sandbox only — use dry_run=True / test keys. Never point attacks at real payment systems.
• 🐛 Found a bypass? Open an issue with a minimal reproduction.
• 🏅 First valid bypass per attack class gets credited in the Security Hall of Fame.
• 🔒 Every valid finding becomes a permanent regression test — this is how the gate gets stronger.

Current status: 240 tests · 16 security suites · 11,351 adversarial authorization attempts · 0 unintended ALLOW · 0 crashes (audit) · 0 known escapes.

⚠️ Precision: this is evidence from the current test suite against the current implementation — reproducible verification, not a mathematical proof of security. New attacks are always possible; every valid finding becomes a permanent regression test (see SECURITY.md).

⚠️ Transparent threat model

• MCP has no auth — trust your host; policy_apply / policy_review are host-level operations
• Approval IDs are 48-bit random — a library trusts its caller
• In-memory audit (append-only on the roadmap)
• We are actively seeking real-world attacks: Reality Test — challenge: make a DENY turn into APPROVE
• Deployment models & trust boundaries: SDK → MCP → Gateway — what each layer guarantees (and what it can't)
• Roadmap (demand-driven): SDK → users → Agent → enforced entry → Governance → Platform

SpendShield: the layer I wish I had before my AI spent my money.

✅ Ready to try it?

60 seconds: ▶ Run the demo in Colab — no install

5 minutes:

pip install spendshield   # v0.8.3

from spendshield import SpendShield

shield = SpendShield(budget=100, max_amount=50)

@shield.protect("order")
def place_order(amount, to): ...

That's it. If it ever lets an unauthorized payment through — break the gate and get credited.