OpenVault: Designing a Shared Credentials Layer for AI Skills

Absolutely, that's a great question and it's a common puzzle when dealing with multiple integrations. Essentially, you're touching on the need for a flexible but secure way to manage credentials across a set of skills or agents.

Right now, you're considering a .env-based approach, where each skill can have its own environment variables, and that can work fine for smaller setups. But as you scale, having a more structured and centralized credential management solution is really helpful.

In other words, there's a reason a lot of teams end up using something like a secrets manager or a vault service—for example, HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or even something like Doppler. These tools allow you to store credentials in a centralized place, control access granularly, and rotate them easily without hard-coding anything in your repo.

The benefit of that approach is that each skill can just request the credentials it needs at runtime. You end up with a kind of "credentials layer" that sits beneath all your skills. It makes things more portable because if you move a skill to another project, it can still fetch the credentials it needs from a common vault rather than relying on a specific .env file.

In short, it's definitely worth considering a centralized secrets management solution if you want your skills to be easily portable and reusable. It also helps ensure you don't accidentally commit sensitive tokens into your codebase.

Sure! If we were sketching out a shared credentials vault layer that others could use as well, it might look something like this:

1. Core Concept and Architecture We'd essentially be building a small credential management service that acts as a single source of truth for storing API keys, OAuth tokens, and other sensitive credentials. This layer could be something that lives either locally for development or in a hosted environment for production use.

2. Standardizing Credential Names and Access Patterns You'd want a consistent naming convention for each type of credential so that any skill can request, say, a "Twitter_API_Token" or a "Google_Calendar_Credentials" by a known key. Essentially, you'd have a standardized key structure so that skills know what to ask for.

3. Handling OAuth and Refresh Tokens Yes, you can absolutely handle OAuth flows in this layer. For example, the vault service could store not only the initial token but also refresh tokens and handle the logic to refresh them as needed. That way, the skills themselves don't need to worry about the OAuth dance; they just ask the vault for a valid token.

4. Local vs. Hosted You can design it so that during development, everything can run locally (maybe a local instance of the vault service). In a production environment, it could be a small hosted service that you or others deploy (on a cloud function, a small server, or even a managed service like AWS Secrets Manager if you wanted to integrate with existing infrastructure).

5. Security and Access Control You'd want to think about who can access what. Each skill might have a certain role or token that allows it to fetch only the credentials it needs. That way, you have a layer of security that prevents skills from accidentally getting credentials they shouldn't have.

6. Reusability and Portability The end goal is that any new skill can just "plug into" this vault layer. If someone else wants to reuse your domain finder skill or your Twitter analytics skill, they just need to configure the vault with their own credentials and everything else stays the same.

Yeah, absolutely. Starting simple is a great idea, especially if you're thinking about something that can be open-sourced and easily adopted.

A file-based approach is indeed a nice, straightforward starting point. You could essentially use something like a simple JSON or YAML file that people can just read and edit. That way, if someone wants to see what credentials are being stored, they just pop open a text editor. And yes, you could have a standard naming convention in that file for each credential type.

If you want just a tiny bit more structure, something like SQLite is still super lightweight and easy to set up. It gives you a bit more querying power if you ever need it, but it doesn't add a lot of complexity. And you could still have that file be human-readable if you want to make it easy for people to inspect.

In terms of adapters—yeah, that's a great idea for later on. You could start simple with a file or SQLite adapter for local development. Then, as you grow, you could add adapters for something like AWS Secrets Manager or HashiCorp Vault for people who want a more robust hosted solution. That way, you offer a pluggable architecture where folks can start simple and then upgrade their backend as needed.

So in short, I'd say start with a straightforward file or SQLite approach, standardize the credential names, and then think about adapters down the line. That gives people a super accessible starting point and a path to grow.

Yeah, I mean, that's totally a solid approach, and it's honestly as simple as it gets. If you're looking to keep things super straightforward, using a .env file definitely makes a lot of sense. It's a format that people already know, and it's really easy to edit and version control if needed.

And yeah, having a little local utility or a simple script that just checks those credential names against a standard list is a great idea. You just document that, say, these are the supported credential keys—like "TWITTER_TOKEN" or "GOOGLE_CALENDAR_SECRET"—and then the utility can just validate that the .env file matches that structure.

So it's definitely a perfectly good way to start. It keeps it really lightweight. And then later on, if you want to evolve into something more sophisticated, you can. But there's nothing wrong with starting with a simple .env file approach at all. It's kind of like starting from the simplest building block and just building up from there if you need to.

I think that's a fantastic approach. Basically, you're giving people the best of both worlds. If you set it up so that someone can install this little vault tool easily—like with an npx command or a Brew formula—then it becomes super easy for them to spin it up and use it. And having a simple SDK that can automatically look for either the .env files locally or check a more centralized vault location just adds that layer of flexibility.

What that means is that people who just want to use a local .env file can do that out of the box. And then if they want to move to a shared vault later, they don't have to change their code much—they just reconfigure the SDK to point to the vault. It's a really nice, incremental adoption path.

So yeah, I think that's a really good idea. You're basically making it easy for people to start simple and then scale up if they need to, without locking them into one approach. It's a great way to go.

Yeah, definitely a few final thoughts to consider. One is just to think a little bit about how you want to handle security and access controls in the longer term. So, for example, if you do have a shared vault, maybe think about how you authenticate which skills or which users have access to which credentials, just so that there's a nice layer of security as you scale. But you can keep that pretty simple to start with.

Another thing to think about is just documentation and making it really easy for other developers to jump in. So if you're open-sourcing this or sharing it, having a really nice, clean README with examples of how to use it with a .env file and how to switch to the vault would be super helpful.

And then maybe just think about versioning or how you want to handle updates over time. That way, if you add more features or more integrations later, it's really easy for people to keep up.

But honestly, it sounds like you've got a solid plan. Starting simple and then layering on more complexity only if you need it is definitely the way to go.

Absolutely, let's do it!

GitHub Repo Documentation

# Credentials Vault for Skills

Welcome to the Credentials Vault! This is a simple, developer-friendly 
way to manage API credentials for your skills and agents. With this 
vault, you can start with a simple .env file approach and grow into 
using a shared vault as your needs evolve.

## Getting Started

1. **Installation:**
   npx install-credentials-vault
   # or
   brew install credentials-vault

2. **Using a .env File:**
   Create a .env file in your project folder with standard keys like 
   TWITTER_TOKEN, GOOGLE_CALENDAR_SECRET, etc.

3. **Switching to a Shared Vault:**
   Configure the SDK to point to a central location.

4. **Validation Tool:**
   We provide a validation utility that checks your .env file against 
   the standard credential names.

Plan for Claude Code or Codex:

1. Initialize a New Project
2. Install Dependencies (dotenv, etc.)
3. Implement the SDK
4. Create a Validation Script
5. Write Documentation
6. Testing

Absolutely, let's expand on that and incorporate those ideas into the documentation.

Features:

• Multi-language SDKs: We offer SDKs for JavaScript/TypeScript and Python
• Simple CLI Tool: Use our command-line interface to add, check, and manage credentials effortlessly
• Flexible Storage: Start with a .env file or switch to a shared vault as your needs grow

CLI Usage:

# Add a credential
credentials-vault add TWITTER_TOKEN your_twitter_token

# Check a credential
credentials-vault check TWITTER_TOKEN

# List all credentials
credentials-vault list

# Validate your .env file
credentials-vault validate

SDK Usage (JavaScript/TypeScript):

const vault = require('credentials-vault');
const twitterToken = vault.get('TWITTER_TOKEN');

SDK Usage (Python):

from credentials_vault import Vault

vault = Vault()
twitter_token = vault.get('TWITTER_TOKEN')

Absolutely, that makes a lot of sense, and it's a great motivation. Let's unpack that a bit. So basically, the pain point is that there's this ecosystem of skills—whether they're for Claude, Codex, or other services—where each skill needs some kind of API token or authentication. But right now, it's kind of the Wild West, right? Everyone is naming their tokens differently. Some people might store a Twitter token in one file and a Google token in another. There's no consistency, and there's no standard approach. And then on top of that, a lot of people just aren't comfortable with how to handle authentication in the first place. So they need a pattern they can follow.

So what you're aiming to do is create this standard layer that makes it really easy and consistent. You want a simple way for people to store their credentials locally, in a known format, so that any skill can just plug into that and grab what it needs without having to reinvent the wheel. And then as a side benefit, you're making those skills more portable and reusable because they're all speaking the same language when it comes to credentials.

Does that sound like a good capture of the motivation? Let me know if there's anything else you want to clarify or add!

Introduction & Motivation (GitHub README):

In the world of AI skills—whether you're building for Claude, Codex, or other services—there's a common challenge developers face. Each skill often needs to authenticate with various APIs, requiring tokens or credentials. Right now, there's no standard way of handling this. Everyone names and stores their tokens differently, which makes it harder to share and reuse these skills. Plus, many developers aren't familiar with the best practices for handling authentication in the first place.

That's why we built the Credentials Vault. Our goal is to provide a simple, standardized way to manage API credentials locally and, if needed, through a shared vault. This makes your skills more portable and reusable, ensures that everyone is on the same page, and takes the guesswork out of authentication.

Twitter Thread:

🧵 Hey folks! I've been noticing a common headache in the AI dev world: everyone's got these cool skills for Claude, Codex, etc., but managing API tokens is kind of a mess. (1/5)

Every skill needs some token or key, but there's no standard way to do it. People name things differently, store them in random places, and it gets confusing fast. (2/5)

I figured it's time to simplify. So I'm working on a little tool called the Credentials Vault. It's basically a friendly way to keep all your API tokens in one standard place, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel each time. (3/5)

You can start with a simple .env file and then move to a shared vault if you want. The idea is to make skills more portable and let everyone speak the same "credential language." (4/5)

Anyway, just wanted to share what I'm up to. Hopefully this saves some headaches and lets you focus more on building awesome stuff. Cheers! (5/5)

Updated Introduction & Motivation:

In the world of AI skills—whether you're building for Claude, Codex, or other services—there's a common challenge developers face. Each skill often needs API tokens or credentials, and right now there's no standard way to handle that. Everyone stores and names their tokens differently, and many folks aren't familiar with best practices for authentication.

That's why we built the Credentials Vault. Our goal is to provide a simple, standardized way to manage credentials. Initially, everything is stored locally in plain .env files right alongside your skills. But as you grow, the SDKs—available in multiple languages like JavaScript/TypeScript and Python—can fall back to these local files or switch to a shared vault if defined. This means you can start simple and then plug in database-backed or hosted vault services later on.

Updated Twitter Thread:

🧵 Hey folks! Noticed a common headache in the AI dev world: lots of cool skills for Claude, Codex, etc., but managing API tokens is a bit wild west. (1/6)

Everyone's got tokens named differently and stored all over the place, and there's no standard approach. Plus, not everyone's comfortable with auth setup. (2/6)

So I'm building a little tool called the Credentials Vault. It lets you keep all your tokens in one standard place, starting with simple .env files. (3/6)

The cool part: the SDKs (in JS/TS, Python, etc.) will fall back to those local files or switch to a shared vault if you define one. You can start simple and get fancier later. (4/6)

Eventually, you can even plug in database-backed or hosted vault services. It's all about making skills portable and taking the guesswork out of auth. (5/6)

Just wanted to share what I'm up to—hope it helps you focus more on building awesome stuff and less on wrestling with tokens. Cheers! (6/6)

Sure! Based on some quick searches, here are a few creative name ideas for your credential management service:

• Vaultify – blends "vault" and "simplify" to show it's easy to use
• SecureVault – emphasizes security
• CredSafe or AuthGuard – highlight safety and protection
• KeyHaven or LockBox – suggests a secure place for credentials

Just make sure to check domain availability and avoid any names that might be easily confused with existing services.

So, from what I found, names like "Vaultify," "KeyHaven," and "LockBox" might work, but you'll want to do a couple of quick checks. You'd need to look up if the domain names for these options are actually available and also see if any of them are already trademarked in a similar space.

Absolutely, let's run with that theme:

1. CredLayer – Short and sweet, focusing on the credential layer idea
2. KeyCloakroom – Like a cloakroom for your keys
3. TokenHarbor – A safe harbor for all your tokens
4. AuthLayer – Emphasizing it's a shared layer for authentication
5. VaultBridge – A bridge between local and shared credential storage
6. CredNest – A nest where credentials are kept safe
7. KeyLayer – Simple, focusing on the layer concept
8. TokenMesh – A network that holds all your tokens together
9. SharedVault – Very direct, emphasizing the shared nature
10. CredHarbor – A place where credentials find safe harbor

Absolutely, let's do another round focusing on "auth," "layer," and "vault":

1. AuthVault – Straightforward and descriptive
2. VaultLayer – Emphasizes it's a vault in the form of a shared layer
3. AuthNest – Mixing authentication with a cozy "nest"
4. SecureLayer – Highlighting the security aspect
5. VaultNest – Combining "vault" with "nest"
6. LayerVault – Flipping the words around
7. AuthKeep – A "keep" is a fortified tower
8. VaultHub – A central hub for vaulting credentials
9. LayerLock – A layered locking mechanism
10. AuthVaultLayer – Spells out exactly what it is

It looks like "OpenAuth" is indeed open, and doing a quick check on "OpenVault" and "OpenCreds," they also seem to be available as names that aren't heavily tied to existing services, at least in this specific context.

So "OpenVault" or "OpenCreds" could definitely work if you like the feel of those. They carry that "open" sense of transparency and accessibility along with the "vault" or "creds" idea. Definitely a good direction to go in if those resonate with you!

OpenVault PRD (Product Requirements Document)

Overview: OpenVault is a credential management layer designed to standardize how API keys and authentication tokens are handled for AI skills and other applications. It provides a simple, consistent way to store credentials locally using .env files and offers the flexibility to transition to a shared vault as needed.

Core Features:

1. Local Credential Storage – Store credentials in .env files in a consistent, standardized format with a validation tool

2. Shared Vault Integration – Allow seamless switching from local .env files to a shared vault with adapters for database-backed or hosted vault services

3. Multi-language SDKs – Offer SDKs in JavaScript/TypeScript and Python that can read from local or shared vaults

4. CLI Tool – Command-line interface to add, check, list credentials, and validate .env files

Goals:

• Simplify credential management for developers
• Standardize how authentication tokens are named and stored
• Provide flexibility to move from local to shared storage

Non-goals:

• Not intended to replace full-fledged enterprise secrets management solutions
• Not aiming to handle every possible security scenario

GitHub Documentation Introduction:

Welcome to OpenVault! This project is all about making API credential management a breeze. Whether you're building AI skills for Claude, Codex, or any other platform, OpenVault helps you store and manage your tokens and keys in a consistent, easy way.

Here are a few one-line description options:

Very tight (GitHub-native, crisp):

• A shared credentials layer for portable Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor skills
• Standardized auth and credentials for reusable AI coding skills
• A simple shared auth layer for portable AI code skills

Slightly more descriptive:

• A simple, standardized credentials vault for portable Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor skills
• Shared auth and credentials for reusable AI skills across Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor

My top recommendation: A shared credentials layer for portable Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor skills ← best balance

Short answer: yes — MIT is exactly right 👍

Why MIT fits OpenVault perfectly:

• ✅ Very permissive — people can use it in open source, closed source, commercial products, and internal tooling
• ✅ Minimal friction for adoption
• ✅ Familiar and trusted by devs
• ✅ Aligns with "standard / layer / infrastructure" vibes
• ✅ Allows hosted services, forks, SDKs, and internal modifications without drama

For something that you want to become a de facto standard, be embedded into tools like Codex / Cursor / Claude Code workflows, and not scare people with licensing questions — MIT is the default good choice.

Why not other options?

• Apache 2.0 – Slightly more complex, patent clause is nice but overkill here
• BSD – Similar to MIT, just less common now
• GPL / AGPL – ❌ Would block internal / commercial use

MIT is the right call.