Document safe parsing for preToolUse.toolArgs when it is a JSON-encoded string
- 主要言語
- Shell
- スター
- 11.2k
- フォーク
- 1.9k
- 平均マージ
- 14時間 16分
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 6
説明
## Summary
The Hooks reference documents `preToolUse.toolArgs` as `unknown`, but does not show how hook authors should safely parse it.
In actual Copilot CLI hook invocations I tested, `toolArgs` arrived as a JSON-encoded string rather than a parsed object. That may be valid under the current `unknown` contract, but it is easy for hook authors to assume object-style access and accidentally write hooks that fail to inspect tool arguments.
Because hook failures are fail-open, this is a security footgun for policy-enforcing hooks.
## Observed behavior
For `preToolUse`, the documentation shows the camelCase payload shape as:
```ts
{
sessionId: string;
timestamp: number;
cwd: string;
toolName: string;
toolArgs: unknown;
}
```
In tested CLI/App-backed hook invocations, the payload effectively behaved like:
```json
{
"toolName": "bash",
"toolArgs": "{\"command\":\"echo hello\"}"
}
```
rather than:
```json
{
"toolName": "bash",
"toolArgs": {
"command": "echo hello"
}
}
```
I am not claiming the string form is invalid. Since the schema says `unknown`, this may be intentional or implementation-defined. The problem is that the docs do not tell hook authors how to handle it safely.
## Why this matters
Security hooks commonly inspect fields like:
```bash
.toolArgs.command
.toolArgs.path
.toolArgs.url
```
If `toolArgs` is a JSON-encoded string, this kind of access does not work as expected. Depending on the script and shell settings, the hook may fail, emit invalid output, or skip the intended check.
Since hook failures are fail-open, a parsing mistake can silently bypass a security policy.
## Request
Please document the expected handling for `toolArgs` and provide safe parsing examples.
At minimum, the docs should say something like:
> `toolArgs` is `unknown` and may be a JSON-encoded string. Hook scripts should check its runtime type and parse it before inspecting tool arguments.
A Bash example would help:
```bash
INPUT="$(cat)"
TOOL_ARGS_JSON="$(
jq -c '
(.toolArgs // .tool_args // .tool_input // {}) as $args
| if ($args | type) == "string" then ($args | fromjson? // {}) else $args end
' <<< "$INPUT"
)"
COMMAND="$(jq -r '.command // ""' <<< "$TOOL_ARGS_JSON")"
```
Python example:
```python
import json
import sys
payload = json.load(sys.stdin)
tool_args = payload.get("toolArgs", payload.get("tool_input", {}))
if isinstance(tool_args, str):
try:
tool_args = json.loads(tool_args)
except json.JSONDecodeError:
tool_args = {}
if not isinstance(tool_args, dict):
tool_args = {}
command = tool_args.get("command", "")
```
## Expected improvement
This would make hook authoring safer, especially for security-focused `preToolUse` hooks, and reduce the chance of fail-open bypasses caused by incorrect assumptions about the runtime type of `toolArgs`.
コントリビューションガイド
調査の方向性
Hooks リファレンスと、その preToolUse ペイロードのセクションから始めます。toolArgs が JSON でエンコードされた文字列になる場合があることをドキュメント化し、無効な値やオブジェクトではない値を処理する安全な Bash および Python のパース例を追加します。hook の作成者が command、path、url などのフィールドを確実に調べられるようになれば完了です。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- python, shell
- 領域
- documentation, security
- issue の種類
- ドキュメント
- 難易度
- 2/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1〜3時間
- 活発さ
- 静か
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 68/100