Everything in the atlas

Not where the records sit anywhere but [SAP HANA Cloud](artifact:btp-hana-cloud): the similarity search and the single retrieval method are both written against its vector engine, and the embeddings and the chat call go through [SAP AI Core](artifact:btp-ai-core), so a project without both has nothing here to call. Not where the dependency has to be an SAP-supported one either: the README states that the plugin is not an official SAP product and is published as a community contribution.

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.

Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.

Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.

No public repository is declared on the package, so the README is the documentation.

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.

Development and sandbox systems only: the README warns against pointing it at production. Transport release is never executed, since the tool exists to show the policy stopping it, and separation of duties is checked against the `identity.approvers` list in the policy file rather than against SAP authorisations, so it holds as far as that file does and no further. The write path has been tested with ABAP classes and other object types may need adjustments, there is deliberately no tool that creates or deletes an object, and one server instance serves one SAP system.

Real SAP calls need the proprietary [SAP NetWeaver RFC SDK](external:sap-nw-rfc-sdk) and the `pyrfc==3.3.1` release the README calls archived and yanked, on Python 3.11, so without those only the demo backend answers. Not over HTTP as it stands: credentials are read from the environment for stdio, and the README says not to expose the server over HTTP without implementing the MCP authorization specification and deployment-level rate limiting. Multi-tenant auth and RBAC beyond the one server-wide policy, rate limiting, metrics and tracing, and deployment packaging are listed as not built. The result limits protect the client and not the system, since the README states they cannot reduce work already performed inside SAP, and the MCP tool annotations that describe read and write risk are advisory metadata rather than an authorisation boundary, so the service account's `S_RFC` and table authorisations are still what decides.

It says so itself, in bold, and the atlas repeats it: not legal advice and not a compliance decision. Only SAP, your contract, or SAP support can answer bindingly, and the skill routes legal, commercial and roadmap questions there rather than guessing at them. Treat the output as evidence gathered, not as a verdict.

It is a plugin for one server — its own — so it is a stack rather than a component. And the guard is only as good as the profile labels: a production system registered as `DEV` is a production system with the safety off.

Neither the package manifest nor the repository tree declares a licence.