Everything in BTP/BAIP

It writes and it administers — ETL extraction and database user management are not read operations, and the same connection that profiles a column can move data out of the tenant. Masking is only as good as the configuration naming the fields, so an unlisted sensitive column is an unmasked one.

It expects a real landscape, not just a project: a `.service.metadata` file naming the Mobile Services app, endpoint and destination, the Cloud Foundry CLI, and access to a BTP Cloud Foundry environment. From 0.4.0 macOS support is ARM64 only — Intel Macs are not supported — alongside Linux and Windows on x64 and ARM64.

Archived The declared repository is archived.

Functional boundary With one SAP system the README says to point the client at that arc-1 directly. Version 1 exchanges tokens within a single subaccount, so backends spread across subaccounts are out; it keeps its session map in memory, so more than one instance needs sticky sessions or a shared store. It routes deterministically and runs no model, which is a different thing from an assistant that reasons across systems. The `/all` endpoint drops the per-connection isolation, and the maintainer's answer to that is a PROD backend set read-only at the SAP end rather than a tool surface that hides the writes.

Its README says it plainly and so does this entry: this is not a simulation, every tool call reaches a live BW system, and write operations produce real changes. BW modelling objects are the definition of a warehouse — the blast radius of a wrong one is every report built on it.

This is the database, not an application in front of it, so what an agent can read is whatever the connection user can read — the guardrails bound the shape of a query, not the sensitivity of what it returns. Grant the connection the rights you would grant a person.

It reads documentation, never a system: nothing in it opens a package.json, a CDS model or an ABAP client, so a question about what your own project does has to be answered elsewhere. The offline half is only as fresh as the submodules the last build pinned, and the index answers where something is written down rather than which of two packages fits a task.

There is nothing to clone here: "Access is provided through a registration page. Once registered, you will receive access to the GitHub repository containing the agents, deployment guides, and documentation", and that repository answers 404 to anyone who has not registered, so neither the agent code nor the deployment guides can be read before the form is filled in. AWS states the agents are published as an unsupported solution, with customers responsible for testing and securing the code before deploying in production, and that they are intended for non-production SAP environments rather than production systems. The documentation link in the README is still a placeholder.

It fronts APIs you already have; nothing here reads a system's source or model, and a config file is only as good as the entity sets somebody wrote into it. OData V2 is the query surface it names.

It answers about the object catalogue, not about your code: nothing here reads your system, so it will tell you a table is not released and not that you used it. That check is ATC's, and this is what makes ATC's answer actionable.

The maintainer states it is unofficial, not endorsed by SAP, and that it uses authenticated Hub web and catalogue endpoints and browser session cookies in ways SAP's terms of service, SAP account terms or an organisation's own policies may restrict. The same README asks the reader not to use it for production, broad distribution or shared access without explicit approval, and says that installing it grants no permission to automate SAP services.

It stops before the artifact: in the README's own words it does not generate or deploy complete iFlow artifacts, so building and shipping the integration flows themselves stays with a person and a tenant. Knowledge beside the work rather than a generator, and it reads nothing from a running tenant.

An early alpha release whose README says to pin the version and test recipes against non-production data first. HANA synchronisation is snapshot-only and does not reconcile deleted rows, so a document for a row deleted in the source stays in the index. A recipe's field allow-list does not decide what the service account may read: the README states that field allow-listing does not replace SAP authorization, and that the package infers no SAP module semantics, authorization scope or safe fields from table names. Only Business Partner has a built-in recipe, every other dataset needs a `KnowledgeRecipe` written for it, and [Qdrant](external:qdrant) local mode is stated to be for development and smaller indexes.

It needs an S-user with SAP Support Portal access, so there is nothing to search without a support contract behind the login. The maintainer states it uses private SAP APIs behind authentication, asks the reader to check whether that use breaches SAP's terms of service, and disclaims both liability and any guarantee that it keeps working. MFA is handled only by typing the code into a visible browser, so a headless deployment cannot complete a login that demands one.

What it returns is planning material, not a commitment, and the monorepo labels the server's role "future/planned features (planning only)". The maintainer also states it is unofficial, not endorsed by SAP, and that it uses authenticated Road Map Explorer web endpoints and browser session cookies in ways SAP's terms of service or an organisation's policies may restrict, with production, broad distribution and shared access called out as needing explicit approval. An account that requires MFA has to be bootstrapped once through a visible browser.

It works against a tenant, through the REST API, with credentials in the environment — so these skills act rather than advise, and the review skill is a check on generated content rather than a substitute for one. Nothing here is useful without an Automation Pilot tenant to point at.

Enterprise-architecture work, not development: this describes what your landscape records, never what your code does. And the skills assume the server — without [the LeanIX MCP server](artifact:sap-leanix-mcp-server) reachable against your instance, they are instructions with nothing to call.

GPL-3.0, which is a licence to read before vendoring any of it into something you ship. Forty plugins is also a lot of always-available surface — the ledger is there because breadth and verification pull in opposite directions, and it does not resolve that so much as report it.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

Every CDS service in both samples is marked `@requires: 'any'` and left publicly accessible, which the README says simplifies the testing and deployment process, and it asks for proper authentication mechanisms to be applied in their place.

It stops at the `AuthInfo` and the raw bearer token, and the README lists what stays with the consuming server: rate limiting, the scope and tool policy, the MCP transport, the SAP HTTP client's headers, and helmet-style hardening. The one piece of hardening it constrains rather than defers is the cross-origin opener policy, which it deliberately leaves unset because popup-based OAuth breaks under it. It is ESM-only on Node 22 or later and shares the host's Express and MCP SDK instances as peer dependencies, so a server on Express 4 cannot take it.

The maintainer states it is unofficial, not endorsed by SAP, and that it automates authenticated SAP web endpoints and browser session cookies in ways SAP's terms of service or an organisation's own policies may restrict. Password login is confined to `accounts.sap.com` and the standard SAP Cloud Identity Services tenant domains: a custom IAS domain, or a login that conditional authentication delegates to a corporate identity provider, fails closed before the password is filled and has to be completed through an interactive login instead.

Specific to MDK metadata projects — nothing here builds or deploys a CAP service or a plain Fiori app. Closed-source, under SAP's own developer licence rather than a public repository.

It is a catalogue of SAP's objects and not a reading of your code: it states that an object is not released, never that you used it, and the finding is the ATC check's. For SAP Cloud ERP Private the files exist for feature pack stack releases only, with no update per support package, so a system between two stacks is checked against its stack's file.

Never as the figure a billing decision rests on: the repository states this is not a replacement for the official billing documents, that the information it provides is purely indicative, and that it recommends verifying against the official BTP Cockpit usage reports. It is published as a sample or reference implementation and says it is not intended for production use without review, testing and hardening.

Not as the provider behind a live tenant estate: tenant state is kept in a file-based store for demonstration, and the README's own operations notes say a production implementation should use a reliable database so that state survives restarts.

Any run nobody is watching: the drawing tools work only while the draw.io canvas at `http://localhost:3000/` is open and connected, so there is no diagram to produce on a build agent or a server. Nothing checks the result either, because the maintainer keeps a diagram linter on the [roadmap](https://github.com/etosin/arc-draw#-roadmap) rather than in the release. The maintainer marks the status early at v0.x, installs it from source, and records testing with Claude Code alone.

The README tells you to fork before cloning, because Claude rewrites `references/` and `SKILL.md` in place as you use it, so a clone shared between people changes under all of them. Installing means `git` and `ln` on macOS or Linux and a symlink into `~/.claude/skills`. Fine positioning stays manual: the coordinates Claude writes can be rough apart from the centre coordinates of elements joined by a straight arrow and the containment relationships.

Its README calls it early-stage — the core workflows run end-to-end against real systems and packaging, documentation and polish are stated as still evolving. A Rust binary rather than an npm install, so the platform build matters.