0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views15 pages

Spec

The document outlines the implementation plan for an AI Startup Co-Founder Platform, detailing phases from repository creation to deployment and security measures. It includes milestones for development, success metrics, and a threat model analysis using the STRIDE framework. The platform aims to create a secure, role-enforced AI assistant that prevents unauthorized actions and ensures accountability among founders.

Uploaded by

Ryan Murangariri
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views15 pages

Spec

The document outlines the implementation plan for an AI Startup Co-Founder Platform, detailing phases from repository creation to deployment and security measures. It includes milestones for development, success metrics, and a threat model analysis using the STRIDE framework. The platform aims to create a secure, role-enforced AI assistant that prevents unauthorized actions and ensures accountability among founders.

Uploaded by

Ryan Murangariri
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SPEC-1-AI Startup Co-Founder Platform

Implementation

This implementation is designed so that:

• A lazy programmer can deploy it

• A security engineer won’t panic

• A contractor team can execute it without ambiguity

Phase 1: Repository & Project Structure

1. Create Repository
mkdir ai-startup-cofounder
cd ai-startup-cofounder
git init
2. Directory Layout
ai-startup-cofounder/
├── backend/
│ ├── app/
│ │ ├── [Link]
│ │ ├── api/
│ │ ├── core/
│ │ ├── models/
│ │ ├── security/
│ │ ├── ai/
│ │ └── audit/
│ ├── [Link]
│ └── Dockerfile
├── frontend/
│ └── (later – internal UI)
├── infra/
│ ├── [Link]
│ └── postgres/
├── prompts/
│ ├── system_core.md
│ ├── role_cto.md
│ ├── role_ceo.md
│ └── role_cfo.md
└── [Link]
Phase 2: Backend (FastAPI)

1. Python Environment
python3.11 -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate
2. Dependencies (backend/[Link])
fastapi
uvicorn
sqlalchemy
psycopg2-binary
pydantic
python-jose
passlib[bcrypt]
cryptography
python-dotenv

Phase 3: Database Setup (PostgreSQL)

Dockerized Postgres (infra/[Link])

version: "3.9"

services:

db:

image: postgres:15

environment:

POSTGRES_USER: ai_admin

POSTGRES_PASSWORD: strong_password_here

POSTGRES_DB: ai_cofounder

volumes:

- pgdata:/var/lib/postgresql/data

ports:

- "5432:5432"

volumes:

pgdata:
Security Notes

• Password must be rotated in production

• Never expose Postgres publicly

• Use Docker secrets later

Phase 4: Authentication & RBAC

Password Security

• Bcrypt hashing

• No plaintext storage

• Rate-limited login attempts

Role Enforcement (Example)

def require_role(required_role):

def checker(user):

if [Link] != required_role:

raise HTTPException(status_code=403)

return checker

Phase 5: AI Orchestration (Advisory Only)

AI Execution Rules

• temperature = 0

• Max tokens enforced

• Output validated via Pydantic schema

• Role-separated prompts

Execution Flow

User Input

→ Sanitize

→ Context Builder

→ Role Prompt Merge

→ LLM Call
→ Schema Validation

→ Encrypt + Store

No function calling

No tool execution

No auto-approval

Phase 6: Prompt Security

Prompt Storage Rules

• Stored in repo

• Versioned

• Read-only at runtime

Injection Defense

• Strip markdown/code from user input

• Reject instructions targeting system behavior

• Context partitioning per role

Phase 7: Encryption

Field-Level Encryption

• [Link]

• ai_outputs.response

Use Fernet (AES-128 + HMAC) via cryptography

Key handling:

• Stored in .env

• Different key per environment

• Rotated quarterly
Phase 8: Audit Logging (Mandatory)

Every action logs:

• User

• Role

• Idea ID

• Prompt version

• Timestamp

• Hash of AI output

Audit logs are append-only

Phase 9: Dockerization (Backend)

Backend Dockerfile

FROM python:3.11-slim

WORKDIR /app

COPY backend/[Link] .

RUN pip install --no-cache-dir -r [Link]

COPY backend/app ./app

CMD ["uvicorn", "[Link]:app", "--host", "[Link]", "--port", "8000"]

Phase 10: Deployment Modes

Option A: Local / Self-Hosted

docker-compose up -d

docker build -t ai-backend backend/

docker run -p 8000:8000 ai-backend


Option B: Cloud (Later)

• Same containers

• Add:

• Managed Postgres

• Secrets manager

• HTTPS ingress

Phase 11: Human-in-the-Loop Enforcement

No phase progression unless:

• CTO + CEO + CFO explicitly approve

• Approval logged and signed

SPEC-1-AI Startup Co-Founder Platform

Milestones

Milestone 1: Secure Foundation (Week 1)

Owner: Ryan (CTO)

• Repository initialized

• FastAPI skeleton running

• PostgreSQL deployed via Docker

• RBAC implemented

• Password hashing + JWT auth

• 2FA enforced for all users

• Audit logging framework live

Exit Criteria:

• All endpoints protected

• All actions logged

• No plaintext secrets

Milestone 2: AI Advisory Core (Week 2)

Owner: Ryan (CTO)

• Prompt templates finalized

• Deterministic AI execution enforced

• Role-specific outputs generated

• Output validation schemas implemented

• Prompt injection defenses active

Exit Criteria:

• Same input → same output

• AI cannot progress workflow alone

• Outputs labeled by role

Milestone 3: Business & Financial Intelligence (Week 3)

Owners:

• Victor (CEO): business logic

• Daniel (CFO): financial logic

• Market validation framework

• Pricing & monetization analysis

• Cost modeling

• Tax & compliance checks

• Risk flagging

Exit Criteria:
• CEO & CFO sign off on advisories

• No financial recommendation without assumptions listed

Milestone 4: Approval & Governance Engine (Week 4)

Owner: Ryan (CTO)

• Multi-founder approval workflow

• Digital acknowledgment required

• Immutable approval records

• Phase progression locked

Exit Criteria:

• No phase advancement without unanimous consent

• Full audit trace from idea → approval

Milestone 5: Dual Deployment Readiness (Week 5)

Owner: Ryan (CTO)

• Cloud-ready configuration

• Self-host deployment validated

• Secrets externalized

• HTTPS enforced

• Backup & restore tested

Exit Criteria:

• One-command deploy

• Disaster recovery verified


Gathering Results

Success Metrics

Technical (CTO)

• 100% encrypted sensitive fields

• Zero critical security findings

• AI determinism verified

• Mean response time < 2s (internal)

Business (CEO)

• Idea clarity score improves per iteration

• Reduced time from idea → plan

• Clear go/no-go signals generated

Financial (CFO)

• Cost projections within ±10% realism

• Tax/compliance flags accurate

• Burn rate visibility

Post-Production Review

• Weekly audit log review

• Quarterly security key rotation

• Prompt version reviews

• Founders retrospective every 30 days


Final Outcome

You will have:

• A secure AI co-founder

• That cannot act autonomously

• That forces alignment

• That prevents bad ideas from scaling

• And prevents founder disputes

This is not a toy — it’s a real internal product you can later commercialize.

SPEC-1-AI Startup Co-Founder Platform

Threat Modeling (STRIDE)

Scope of Threat Model

In-scope components:

• Web UI

• FastAPI Backend

• AI Orchestrator

• PostgreSQL Database

• Authentication & RBAC

• Prompt Store

• Audit Logs

Out of scope (for now):

• Public users

• Payments
• Third-party integrations

STRIDE Breakdown

1. Spoofing Identity

Threats

• Attacker impersonates Ryan / Victor / Daniel

• Stolen JWTs

• Credential reuse attacks

Mitigations

• Mandatory 2FA (TOTP or hardware key)

• Short-lived JWTs (≤15 min)

• Refresh tokens bound to device fingerprint

• Passwords hashed with bcrypt (high cost factor)

• Login rate limiting + IP throttling

Residual Risk: Low

Owner: CTO (Ryan)

2. Tampering with Data

Threats

• Modification of startup ideas

• Altered AI outputs

• Manipulated approval decisions


Mitigations

• Field-level encryption on sensitive columns

• Append-only audit logs

• Hash of AI outputs stored separately

• Database role separation (read vs write)

• No direct DB access from UI

Residual Risk: Low

Owner: CTO

3. Repudiation

Threats

• Founder denies approving a decision

• Disputes over who changed what

Mitigations

• Every action logged with:

• User ID

• Role

• Timestamp

• Action hash

• Explicit digital acknowledgment required

• Immutable approval records

• Time-synced server clock (NTP)

Residual Risk: Very Low

Owner: CTO + CEO


4. Information Disclosure

Threats

• Startup ideas leaked

• Financial projections exposed

• Prompt leakage

• AI responses visible to wrong role

Mitigations

• TLS 1.3 everywhere

• AES encryption at rest

• Per-role access enforcement

• Secrets stored outside repo

• Prompt templates never sent to client

• Encrypted backups

Residual Risk: Low

Owner: CTO + CFO

5. Denial of Service (DoS)

Threats

• Internal abuse (looped AI requests)

• Resource exhaustion

• DB lock contention
Mitigations

• Rate limiting per user

• AI request quotas

• Timeout on AI calls

• DB connection pooling

• Circuit breaker on AI failures

Residual Risk: Medium (acceptable for internal use)

Owner: CTO

6. Elevation of Privilege

Threats

• CEO/CFO accessing CTO-only functions

• Bypassing approval workflow

• Prompt injection attempting system control

Mitigations

• Strict RBAC enforcement

• Backend-only authorization checks

• No client-side trust

• Prompt injection defenses:

• Instruction stripping

• Output schema validation

• No AI tool execution permissions

Residual Risk: Low

Owner: CTO

You might also like