why you decided to remove attributes?

I didn't want to be too verbose but this is good point, I re-added them. It will make debugging easier

It's possible if it's expensive enough we might want to use redis or memcached on remote server, do you have a solution in mind for that?

Yes, I was thinking of that, or even creating an adapter for the local server. Generally using Redis in the remote server would be the next logical step.
Two main aspects that will guide enhancing this mode are

1. lockdown mode becomes popular and
2. if the memory burden on maintaining this cache with TTL is too high (but I need to analyse usage patterns to be 100% sure, my gut feeling is that typical user won't be scanning thousands of repos)

Does this logger hook into MCP logging because log output shows up like an error with MCP servers using stdio, and I think you can instead send server log messages explicitly.

Also you can log to stderr (at least the docs from MCP debugging in VS Code say that's better.

It looks like this is logging to stdio unless I missed something.

It's also sending logs to stderr, I am basically passing down the logger that is created in main:

Or is that not what you meant?

That should be sufficient.

The trusted bot check should be performed before callinggetRepoAccessInfo to avoid an unnecessary API query for trusted bots. Currently, the function fetches repo access information first (which may involve a GraphQL API call), then checks if the user is a trusted bot. This wastes API quota and adds latency for bot accounts.

Consider moving the trusted bot check to the beginning:

func (c*RepoAccessCache)IsSafeContent(ctx context.Context,username,owner,repostring) (bool,error) {ifc.isTrustedBot(username) {returntrue,nil}repoInfo,err:=c.getRepoAccessInfo(ctx,username,owner,repo)iferr!=nil {returnfalse,err}// ... rest of the logic}

This sounds reasonable

The documentation lists the conditions in a different order than they are checked in the code. The comment states:

1. trusted bot
2. push access
3. private repo
4. viewer matches username

But the code checks:

1. trusted bot
2. private repo
3. viewer matches username
4. push access

For clarity and maintainability, the documentation should match the code order. Consider updating the comment to:

// IsSafeContent determines if the specified user can safely access the requested repository content.// Safe access applies when any of the following is true:// - the content was created by a trusted bot;// - the repository is private;// - the content was created by the viewer;// - the author currently has push access to the repository.

The new trusted bot functionality lacks test coverage. Since other functions in this package have tests (e.g.,TestRepoAccessCacheEvictsAfterTTL), the new behavior should also be tested.

Consider adding test cases for:

1. Verifying that "copilot" (case-insensitive) is recognized as a trusted bot
2. EnsuringIsSafeContent returnstrue for trusted bots without querying the API
3. Testing that non-trusted usernames still trigger the normal access checks