Agent Permission Matrix
Map which agent can use each tool, the permitted data and actions, and the approval owner. Review conflicting rights before implementation.
Example loaded. Replace sample values with your scenario. Rows stay in this browser; export creates a CSV download on this device.
| Actor | Resource/tool | Data class | Action | Approval gate | Permission owner | Scope rationale | Row |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Permission and conflict review
Review the editable grants and inspect every flagged condition.
Build a reviewable permission record
- Replace the three fictional example rows with your own scoped agents and resources.
- Record the data class, read/draft/write/approve action, approval gate, named owner and rationale.
- Investigate missing ownership, approval without a second person, and write/approve conflicts for the same actor and resource.
- Export CSV locally. Validate the record with responsible owners and enforce permissions in the actual system.
The tool does not connect to your environment, apply permissions or certify that access is appropriate. Its flags support a manual review.
Worked example
A fictional support agent reads assigned tickets and writes replies subject to human approval. Giving that same agent both write and approve permissions for the Ticket API triggers a separation-of-duties review. A separate finance agent's payment approval is recorded with a two-person gate. These examples illustrate the tool's rules, not proof of effective authorization.
Edit the example and download a CSV. CSV can be imported into Excel or Google Sheets; the tool does not create native workbook or PDF files.
Method and sources
- NIST SP 800-162: Attribute Based Access Control
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: access-control reference
- NIST RBAC Project (archived; historical background)
Updated 2026-10-07. Sources are linked on this page.
How to review the matrix
A useful permission record describes one actor, one resource, one data scope, and one action at a time. Split a workflow into separate grants when reading, drafting, changing a record, and approving an outcome have different owners or consequences. Use a rationale that can be checked against a real queue, API scope, database role, or business process. Avoid broad labels such as “all data” when a smaller set of assigned records will do.
Review the enforcement point before you treat a row as a control. An entry in this worksheet does not configure an agent, identity provider, tool adapter, or downstream service. A resource owner must map the approved row to the actual system, test a denied action as well as an allowed action, and retain evidence. Revisit the matrix when the agent gains a tool, the data source changes, or responsibility moves to another team.
Frequently asked questions
Does the matrix apply permissions automatically?
No. It helps people document and review proposed grants. Apply approved changes in the target system and verify them there.
What does a review flag mean?
It identifies a pattern worth checking, such as broad write scope or one actor holding both write and approve. A flag is not a vulnerability verdict.
Can I export an Excel workbook?
The tool downloads CSV. Import that file into Excel or Google Sheets; it does not generate workbook or PDF formats.
What should a two-person approval record include?
Name the independent second approver and identify the workflow or system evidence that proves the second person must act.
Continue with the RBAC permission matrix template, the access control matrix template, and the human approval matrix guide.
Sources
- NIST SP 800-162: Guide to Attribute Based Access Control
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (Release 5.2.0): AC-5 separation of duties and AC-6 least privilege
- NIST RBAC Project (archived; historical background)
- OWASP GenAI Security Project
Updated 2026-10-08. Sources are linked on this page.