I built Ctrl: Execution control plane for high stakes agentic systems
I built Ctrl, an open-source execution control plane that sits between an agent and its tools.
Instead of letting tool calls execute directly, Ctrl intercepts them, dynamically scores risk, applies policy (allow / deny / approve), and only then executes; recording every intent, decision, and event in a local SQLite ledger.
GH: [https://github.com/MehulG/agent-ctrl](https://github.com/MehulG/agent-ctrl)
It’s currently focused on LangChain + MCP as a drop-in wrapper. The demo shows a content publish action being intercepted, paused for approval, and replayed safely after approval.
I’d love feedback from anyone running agents that take real actions.
From a practical angle, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s the key detail here. This probably isn’t the last word on it. That’s the impression it gives me.
If you zoom out, the signal is clear, the strategy less so Hard to say where this lands long term.
From my side, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s what people are responding to That’s the key detail here. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Reaction: lock in chat
the wording alone shifts how people read this and that friction is hard to ignore Curious how this plays out. That’s the impression it gives me.
At this point, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s what makes this interesting. That’s just my read on it.
Reaction: They both have a serious jaw condition so it should be a fair fight
Not gonna lie, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone That’s the key detail here.
From a practical angle, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that’s where the disagreement starts
From a practical angle, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so
I get the idea, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage Others will probably see it differently.
I get the idea, the way this is presented changes how it lands Curious how this plays out.
Reaction: Title*
Trying to be fair, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s what people are responding to Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Real talk, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here which is why the comments look the way they do That part stands out.
Putting bias aside, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that’s where people will push back That part stands out.
On the surface, the wording alone shifts how people read this This could age very differently in a week. That’s the impression it gives me.
At first glance, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that friction is hard to ignore
On the surface, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which makes the reaction pretty predictable That’s the key detail here. Others will probably see it differently.
Real talk, this solves one problem while creating another and that tension shows up immediately That’s the key detail here. That’s the impression it gives me.
From where I sit, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that’s where people will push back That’s what changes the context. That’s just how it reads to me.
On the surface, this reads stronger on paper than in practice That’s what makes this interesting. Others will probably see it differently.
Bluntly speaking, the timing matters more than people admit and that friction is hard to ignore Let’s see what happens next.
Reaction: Title*
the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s where people will push back That’s the key detail here. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
At this point, the follow-through is what will decide this That part stands out.
At this point, this comes across more reactive than planned That’s just my read on it.
Bluntly speaking, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone We’ll see how people react over time.
this feels more about execution than intent and that’s where people will push back That’s the key detail here.
Bluntly speaking, the wording alone shifts how people read this
Looking at this, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that tension shows up immediately
From a neutral view, the wording alone shifts how people read this which turns this into more of a debate Curious how this plays out. Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, the follow-through is what will decide this and that’s where it gets complicated That part stands out. Others will probably see it differently.