Read a Mini-App Permission Request helps mini-app users and creators decide whether each capability is necessary, proportionate, and reversible. It addresses helping people run, publish, and remix small apps without ignoring permissions, secrets, accessibility, licensing, and abuse. The goal is a usable decision record, checklist, or conversation—not a polished claim that outruns the evidence.
The decision this guide should improve
A useful guide changes a real decision. For this topic, the decision is whether and how to decide whether each capability is necessary, proportionate, and reversible. Name who owns that call, the options they can choose, the deadline, and what would make them change course.
Keep observations separate from assumptions. An official source can explain a standard or risk, but it cannot prove what happened in your particular product, portfolio, job, home, or mini-app. Direct evidence needs its own date, subject, method, and limitation.
Use these current primary sources
The workflow below is grounded in MDN: iframe security and sandboxing, MDN: Content Security Policy sandbox, OWASP API Security Top 10. Open the source that supports the exact claim you need, confirm its scope and update date, and record where it does not apply. A smaller claim-to-source map is more useful than a decorative bibliography.
Five-step workflow
- 1. Translate the permission into a user-visible action. Write the evidence, owner, date, and next decision beside the step.
- 2. Ask whether a narrower scope exists. Write the evidence, owner, date, and next decision beside the step.
- 3. Separate read, write, publish, and delete. Write the evidence, owner, date, and next decision beside the step.
- 4. Check duration and revocation. Write the evidence, owner, date, and next decision beside the step.
- 5. Deny access unrelated to the app's purpose. Write the evidence, owner, date, and next decision beside the step.
Do the steps in order the first time. If a safety, privacy, financial, health, legal, or authorization boundary appears, pause the workflow. More activity is not progress when the prerequisite is missing.
Worked example
A photo caption app requests microphone and precise location access. Neither is needed for captioning, so the user denies both and does not accept a vague explanation about future features.
The useful pattern is the visible chain from context to evidence to decision. Another person should be able to understand what was observed, what remained uncertain, and why the next action was proportionate.
Decision record
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Subject | Exact user, workflow, account, role, home, app, strategy, or environment |
| Baseline | Current behavior before the change |
| Evidence | Source, direct observation, date, and method |
| Boundary | Safety, trust, cost, permission, or quality stop condition |
| Decision | Proceed, revise, seek qualified help, park, or stop |
| Review | Owner, next action, and date |
Common failure patterns
- Starting with a tool. Start with the user outcome and choose the lightest tool that produces credible evidence.
- Treating exposure as destiny. A risk, score, or capability describes a condition; it does not predict every outcome.
- Moving the threshold afterward. Set success and stop conditions before seeing the result.
- Hiding exceptions. Preserve manual corrections, failures, disagreements, and missing data.
- Reporting activity as impact. A click, test run, generated answer, or submitted form is not automatically the user outcome.
Questions for a second reviewer
- Which statement is most likely to be wrong?
- Which evidence is direct, and which is inferred?
- Does every requested permission or data field support the stated job?
- Who bears the cost of a false positive or false negative?
- What would cause us to stop proudly?
- Can someone reproduce the result from this record?
Sources and review note
Source links reviewed 2026-07-13. Follow each publisher for revisions and confirm that the guidance applies to your location and situation.