🕵️ SicherheitslückenWhat continuous operational resilience looks like under DORA(09.09.2026 um 17:53 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten OpenAI seeks tougher AI rules. CIOs may feel the ripple effects(10.09.2026 um 12:11 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten Mistral valued at €21bn after €3bn Series D funding round(08.09.2026 um 10:19 Uhr)
🪟 Windows TippsWindows XP's Cursor Indicator Is Getting a Windows 11 Refresh(25.08.2026 um 13:00 Uhr)
🕵️ SicherheitslückenWhat continuous operational resilience looks like under DORA(09.09.2026 um 17:53 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten OpenAI seeks tougher AI rules. CIOs may feel the ripple effects(10.09.2026 um 12:11 Uhr)
🔧 AI Nachrichten Mistral valued at €21bn after €3bn Series D funding round(08.09.2026 um 10:19 Uhr)
🪟 Windows TippsWindows XP's Cursor Indicator Is Getting a Windows 11 Refresh(25.08.2026 um 13:00 Uhr)

🔧 Programmierung 🕛 vor 1 Monat 5 Min Lesezeit
0

I built a personal "Agentic OS" that runs my DBA work — with approval gates, audit trails, and a $0.01 morning brief

↗ Quelle (dev.to)
🗣️ Stimme:
📑 Inhaltsübersicht

I'm an Oracle Apps DBA. My whole job is built on one instinct: nothing touches a production system without me knowing exactly what it's about to do.



So when I started building AI agents to run my daily work, I refused to do the usual thing — hand a model a shell and hope. Instead I spent the time building a small operating system around the agents. Here's what came out of it.







(2-min demo: launching a live DB diagnostic, watching the agent think in real time, and the moment an agent tries to write a file and gets frozen by the approval gate.)






What it actually does



Six agents ("skills"), each a folder with a manifest and a prompt:





  • ebs-dba — read-only Oracle/EBS diagnostics: AWR summaries, top SQL, blocking sessions


  • patch-triage — parses Oracle CPU advisories, filters to my stack (19c + EBS R12.2.11), buckets by urgency, CISA KEV first


  • daily-brief — wakes at 7:00, checks DB health + git status across my projects, sends me a digest. Runs on Haiku. Costs about one cent.


  • research — fan-out web search with citations and cross-checked claims


  • project-runner — build/test/deploy tasks (deploys always need my approval)


  • content-pipeline — drafts content; structurally incapable of publishing anything



Adding a skill = dropping in a folder:




CODE
# skills/ebs-dba/manifest.yaml
name: ebs-dba
description: Read-only Oracle/EBS diagnostics - reports findings only
triggers: [awr, top sql, blocking, tablespace]
model: claude-opus-4-8
tools: [oracle-dba.*] # glob allowlist against MCP tools
risk: read-only # read-only | write | spend | prod-touch
requires_approval: false
schedule: null # or a cron expression









The part I actually care about: the permission model



The AI was the easy part. The trust model is the product.



Every tool registers with a tier: read, write, spend, or prod-touch. The kernel enforces gates from the tier — never from anything the model says:





  • read runs automatically (all Oracle tools register as read; there is no write path to the database at all)

  • everything else halts with a dry-run preview and waits for an explicit yes

  • unattended runs (cron) can't prompt anyone — so gated calls park in a queue and notify me

  • an approval matches the exact arguments, hashed, single-use. Approving npm run build can never be replayed as rm -rf

  • a gate that can't read stdin fails closed



The tier of a shell command is decided per-call:




CODE
# "git status", "pytest", "npm run build"  -> read, runs free
# "vercel --prod", "terraform apply" -> spend, hard gate
# anything else -> write, gated
# sqlite3 is allowed only if the SQL is SELECT-only:
if cmd.startswith("sqlite3 ") and "select" in cmd.lower() \
and not SQLITE_WRITE_RE.search(cmd):
return Tier.READ






Fun fact: my first live test caught a real hole here. The model ran sqlite3 -header -column ... — flags I hadn't anticipated — and a lazy prefix rule I'd written would have let a DELETE through unprompted. The test suite now has a regression case for it. Live runs find what unit tests don't.






Everything is audited, to the cent



Every run writes to SQLite and a per-run JSONL file: every model turn, every tool call with arguments and duration, every approval decision, and the token cost accumulating turn by turn.




CODE
$ agentos runs
20260705-0027 daily-brief done 6264/723 tokens $0.0099
20260705-0022 research done 115606/3411 $0.6633
20260705-0020 patch-triage done 25647/3659 $0.2197






That research run cost 66 cents — and I know it to four decimal places, because an agent platform without cost accounting is a platform you'll turn off the first time a bill surprises you.






The dashboard



A FastAPI app on localhost (single HTML file, zero CDNs, nothing leaves the machine) that tails the audit log over SSE. Launch a run from any terminal and you watch it think live in the browser: MCP server connects, the actual SQL it ran, the cost ticking up, and — when it hits a gate — a red approval card with the dry-run JSON and approve/deny buttons.






Stack





  • Python 3.12+, dependencies pinned with uv — anthropic, mcp, typer, apscheduler, fastapi, pyyaml, rich


  • Claude Opus 4.8 for reasoning-heavy skills, Haiku 4.5 for cheap/frequent ones (the router and the morning brief)


  • MCP (Model Context Protocol) for tools — my existing mcp-oracle-dba server plugs in with one YAML entry


  • SQLite for memory, run history, and the approvals queue


  • APScheduler + launchd for unattended scheduled runs

  • 30 tests, including an end-to-end kernel loop against a real MCP server over stdio






What's next



The current version answers when asked and runs on schedule. The next one notices things on its own: a sentinel loop polling a live database every few seconds — blocking sessions, tablespace pressure, concurrent-request backlogs — that triggers an investigation agent automatically and delivers a root-cause report before I'd have opened a terminal. Real database, real locks, zero prompts typed.



That's the next post. If you've built approval gates or agent audit trails differently, I'd genuinely like to hear how — this pattern feels like something we should be converging on as an industry.






Questions about the permission model or the MCP wiring? Ask below — I'll answer everything.

Vollständiger Original-Bericht
Ausführliche Details, Code-Beispiele & Hersteller-Stellungnahme auf dev.to.
↗ Original-Artikel auf dev.to lesen
Wie bewertest du diesen Beitrag?
1 Klick Feedback
Teilen mit Netzwerk & Team:

Community-Analysen & Experten-Meinungen 0

Verfasse deine eigene Analyse, teile Workarounds oder diskutiere diesen Vorfall im Blog.
Noch keine Community-Analyse verfasst. Markiere einen Textabschnitt oder klicke oben auf Eigene Analyse verfassen“!
Community Pulse: Relevanz-Einschätzung
1 Klick Experten-Votum
🔴 Akute Relevanz 0%
🟡 In Evaluierung 0%
🟢 Keine Auswirkung 0%
Spannende Innovation 0%
Verwandte Story-Cluster & Quellen (Vektor-KI)
Port 8095 Engine
1 Quelle
Sam Altman calls GPT-6 Astra rollout ‘messy’ as enterprise users wait for access
1 Quelle
Swiss government explores replacing Microsoft 365 with open-source software
1 Quelle
What continuous operational resilience looks like under DORA
Ähnliche Beiträge
🔍 Verwandte News

Auch interessante Nachrichten I built a personal "Agentic OS" that runs my DBA work — with approval gates, audit trails, and a $0.01 morning brief

Thematisch verwandte Begriffe: built, personal, Agentic, that · 6 Treffer

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...