mirror of
https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n.git
synced 2026-08-07 06:16:40 +00:00
7552eeca7c
Add ready-to-post community copy, link the public feedback provenance, and align the Codex for OSS pack with the current official form.
94 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
94 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
# Community launch pack — v0.9.0
|
|
|
|
Publish only after the public `v0.9.0` release URL works.
|
|
|
|
## Feedback provenance
|
|
|
|
The v0.9 scope came from the public [original r/n8n launch thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/n8n/comments/1v3is1w/i_built_an_opensource_safety_gate_for_aigenerated/), not a speculative roadmap.
|
|
|
|
| Community feedback | v0.9 response |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Separate dangerous nodes from dangerous outcomes | VF010 and VF011 classify money, customer, privileged, and destructive-data actions. |
|
|
| Require idempotency, approval, amount/counterparty limits, and durable audit | `outcomeContracts` verifies graph evidence for those controls. |
|
|
| Error paths can exist but notify nobody | VF012 requires an operator-visible failure path. |
|
|
| Writes need rollback or replay stories | VF013 requires compensation, rollback, or replay evidence. |
|
|
| Static checks cannot replace runtime guardrails | The CLI and documentation explicitly preserve that boundary. |
|
|
|
|
Captured on 2026-07-22: the thread had 3 votes and several substantive comments. Treat the comments as product evidence; do not present the vote count as broad adoption.
|
|
|
|
## Reddit — r/n8n
|
|
|
|
### Title
|
|
|
|
I built your feedback into Vibeflow v0.9: outcome-aware preflight checks for n8n workflows
|
|
|
|
### Post
|
|
|
|
I shared Vibeflow here earlier and two pieces of feedback changed the direction of the project:
|
|
|
|
1. A dangerous outcome is not the same thing as a dangerous node. A normal HTTP node can still issue a refund, send a payment, notify a customer, change access, or delete data.
|
|
2. A connected error branch is not enough if it silently terminates, and a write is not production-ready without a rollback, compensation, or replay story.
|
|
|
|
That feedback is now implemented in Vibeflow v0.9.
|
|
|
|
Vibeflow is a local, dependency-free preflight checker for exported n8n workflow JSON. The new release adds:
|
|
|
|
- `VF010`: blocks money and privileged actions without an outcome contract;
|
|
- `VF011`: warns about uncontracted customer communications and destructive writes;
|
|
- `VF012`: detects error paths that notify nobody;
|
|
- `VF013`: requires compensation, rollback, or replay evidence.
|
|
|
|
For a contracted action, the checker verifies structural evidence in the workflow graph:
|
|
|
|
- an atomic idempotency claim cannot be bypassed;
|
|
- a durable audit write happens before the action;
|
|
- approval, amount, and counterparty checks have real allow/deny branches;
|
|
- the failure notification is connected to the action's error output;
|
|
- recovery is represented in the graph.
|
|
|
|
The important boundary: this is static preflight, not runtime enforcement. The payment/customer system must still enforce authorization, limits, counterparties, durable audit, and recovery at runtime.
|
|
|
|
There is a reproducible unsafe refund workflow and a passing contracted version in the repository:
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n
|
|
|
|
Release: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/releases/tag/v0.9.0
|
|
|
|
I am especially looking for anonymized examples of:
|
|
|
|
- a real-world action the classifier misses;
|
|
- a false positive where the workflow is demonstrably safe;
|
|
- a control that looks present in JSON but can still be bypassed;
|
|
- a recovery pattern that does not fit compensate/rollback/replay.
|
|
|
|
Please remove credentials and customer data before sharing workflow fragments. The best reports will become paired unsafe/safe regression fixtures.
|
|
|
|
## Short reply to the original commenters
|
|
|
|
Your distinction between dangerous nodes and dangerous outcomes became the core of v0.9. The release now detects ordinary HTTP/database/message nodes by impact and validates idempotency, approval, amount/counterparty limits, durable audit, operator-visible failures, and recovery evidence. I kept runtime enforcement explicitly outside the claim. Thank you — this materially improved the project.
|
|
|
|
## GitHub Discussion
|
|
|
|
### Title
|
|
|
|
Vibeflow v0.9: help test outcome contracts against real n8n workflows
|
|
|
|
### Body
|
|
|
|
Vibeflow v0.9 adds outcome-aware preflight policies for money, customer, privileged, and destructive-data actions. The implementation was driven by community feedback that ordinary nodes can still produce dangerous real-world outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Please test an exported workflow and report anonymized false positives, missed actions, bypassable controls, or recovery patterns. Useful reports need a minimal unsafe case, the expected safe case, and the exported JSON fields that distinguish them.
|
|
|
|
- Release: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/releases/tag/v0.9.0
|
|
- Demo: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/blob/v0.9.0/docs/demo.md
|
|
- False-positive report: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/issues/new?template=false-positive.yml
|
|
- Policy proposal: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/issues/new?template=rule-proposal.yml
|
|
|
|
Never attach credentials, customer data, or a private production workflow.
|
|
|
|
## Evidence rules
|
|
|
|
- Do not ask for artificial stars, forks, or empty PRs.
|
|
- Record only public, attributable usage or anonymized audit outcomes.
|
|
- Convert actionable feedback into an issue and paired unsafe/safe fixture.
|
|
- Never publish customer workflow names, IDs, node names, credentials, or infrastructure identifiers.
|