Molecule AI PM 9cc48a99fb docs: add Phase 30 launch plan, SEO keywords, and Cognee research

- Phase 30 launch plan (chrome-devtools-mcp-seo-brief.md, blog post)
- SEO keyword brief (keywords.md with P0/P1 locked keywords)
- Cognee workspace isolation eval + architecture deep-dive

Co-Authored-By: PM <pm@agents.moleculesai.app>

2026-04-21 01:00:56 +00:00

2.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

Cognee Architecture Deep-Dive — Workspace Isolation

Date: 2026-04-20 Issue: Molecule-AI/molecule-core#1146 Research by: Research Lead Status: Complete

Executive Summary

Cognee has dataset-level isolation primitives but no storage-layer enforcement and no native workspace_id support in its MCP tool interface. Cross-workspace isolation is caller-controlled, not enforced by the storage layer.

Isolation Layer Analysis

Layer	Mechanism	Enforced?	Risk
Storage (Postgres)	No RLS, no schema namespacing	❌ None	High
App — dataset	`dataset_name` passed per tool call	⚠️ Caller-controlled	Medium
App — user	`get_default_user()` internal resolver only	⚠️ Soft	Medium
MCP `workspace_id` param	Not present in cognee-mcp interface	❌ N/A	High

Key Findings

Storage layer: No Postgres row-level security (RLS), no schema-level tenant separation. Any admin with DB access can read any tenant's data.
Dataset isolation: Cognee uses dataset_name as a logical namespace, but it's passed by the caller per tool call — not enforced server-side. A misconfigured or malicious caller could read/write across datasets.
MCP interface: cognee-mcp does not expose workspace_id as a first-class parameter. Workspaces would need to be mapped to dataset names externally.
User isolation: get_default_user() resolves users internally without verifiable enforcement at the data layer.

Migration Implications

Adopting Cognee as the memory substrate requires an auth bridge:

The bridge wraps cognee-mcp and injects workspace_id → dataset_name mapping
All tool calls are routed through the bridge, which enforces tenant context
Estimated effort: ~100–200 LOC for the MCP proxy wrapper
This is a pragmatic path — the bridge provides the isolation Cognee's storage layer lacks

Recommendation

Attempt the auth bridge prototype first (1–2 days of engineering):

Build MCP proxy that maps workspace_id to dataset_name on each call
Validate that cross-workspace calls are correctly rejected
If clean → adopt Cognee for Phase 9
If complex → build native with storage-layer enforcement

Do not proceed with Phase 9 proprietary memory investment until bridge prototype is evaluated.

Sources

Cognee GitHub: https://github.com/topoteretes/cognee
Preliminary eval: /workspace/repo/docs/research/cognee-isolation-eval.md

2.5 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape