Add Policy in Amazon Bedrock AgentCore samples: tool access control and guardrails in policies (with architecture diagrams)

[ren8k]

Issue number: Related PR: #1739 (this PR supersedes it — same branch content plus image-based architecture diagrams, opened on behalf of @BharathiSrini per her request)

Concise description of the PR

Adds Policy in Amazon Bedrock AgentCore code samples (tool access control with Cedar ABAC/NL2Cedar, and guardrails in policies) under 01-features/07-centralize-and-govern-your-ai-infrastructure/02-policy, with image-based architecture diagrams in all three READMEs.

This PR contains:

• Policy code samples (authored by @BharathiSrini, from her agentcore-policy-nys branch):
  • 02-policy/ — end-to-end policy demo: deploy gateway + Lambda tools + Cognito OAuth + Cedar policy engine; NL2Cedar and ABAC scenarios; Strands agent with policy enforcement
  • 02-policy/01-tool-access-with-policy/ — fine-grained tool access control with Cedar ABAC on JWT claims and NL2Cedar generated policies
  • 02-policy/02-guardrails-in-policy/ — Bedrock Guardrails content-safety classifiers attached to a gateway as Cedar FORBID rules (ContentFilter / PromptAttack / SensitiveInformation)
• Architecture diagrams (this contribution): AWS reference architecture style diagrams with official Bedrock AgentCore icons in all three READMEs. Each PNG embeds the draw.io diagram XML, so the diagrams remain fully editable by opening the PNG directly in draw.io (*.drawio files are excluded by the repo .gitignore).

User experience

Before: The policy samples were not available in the mainline repo. The READMEs on the feature branch used ASCII art architecture diagrams.

After: Customers can find complete, runnable Policy samples (deploy → demo → cleanup) under 01-features/07-centralize-and-govern-your-ai-infrastructure/02-policy, with professional image-based architecture diagrams using the official Bedrock AgentCore icons in every README.

Checklist

If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.

• I have reviewed the contributing guidelines
• Add your name to CONTRIBUTORS.md
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Are you uploading a dataset?
• Have you documented Introduction, Architecture Diagram, Prerequisites, Usage, Sample Prompts, and Clean Up steps in your example README?
• I agree to resolve any issues created for this example in the future.
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the project license.

[github-actions]

Latest scan for commit: 3c247a4 | Updated: 2026-07-10 07:32:10 UTC

Security Scan Results

Scan Metadata

• Project: ASH
• Scan executed: 2026-07-10T07:31:59+00:00
• ASH version: 3.0.0

Summary

Scanner Results

The table below shows findings by scanner, with status based on severity thresholds and dependencies:

Column Explanations:

Severity Levels (S/C/H/M/L/I):

• Suppressed (S): Security findings that have been explicitly suppressed/ignored and don't affect the scanner's pass/fail status
• Critical (C): The most severe security vulnerabilities requiring immediate remediation (e.g., SQL injection, remote code execution)
• High (H): Serious security vulnerabilities that should be addressed promptly (e.g., authentication bypasses, privilege escalation)
• Medium (M): Moderate security risks that should be addressed in normal development cycles (e.g., weak encryption, input validation issues)
• Low (L): Minor security concerns with limited impact (e.g., information disclosure, weak recommendations)
• Info (I): Informational findings for awareness with minimal security risk (e.g., code quality suggestions, best practice recommendations)

Other Columns:

• Time: Duration taken by each scanner to complete its analysis
• Action: Total number of actionable findings at or above the configured severity threshold that require attention

Scanner Results:

• PASSED: Scanner found no security issues at or above the configured severity threshold - code is clean for this scanner
• FAILED: Scanner found security vulnerabilities at or above the threshold that require attention and remediation
• MISSING: Scanner could not run because required dependencies/tools are not installed or available
• SKIPPED: Scanner was intentionally disabled or excluded from this scan
• ERROR: Scanner encountered an execution error and could not complete successfully

Severity Thresholds (Thresh Column):

• CRITICAL: Only Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
• HIGH: High and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
• MEDIUM (MED): Medium, High, and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
• LOW: Low, Medium, High, and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
• ALL: Any finding of any severity level causes scanner to fail

Threshold Source: Values in parentheses indicate where the threshold is configured:

• (g) = global: Set in the global_settings section of ASH configuration
• (c) = config: Set in the individual scanner configuration section
• (s) = scanner: Default threshold built into the scanner itself

Statistics calculation:

• All statistics are calculated from the final aggregated SARIF report
• Suppressed findings are counted separately and do not contribute to actionable findings
• Scanner status is determined by comparing actionable findings to the threshold

Scanner	S	C	H	M	L	I	Time	Action	Result	Thresh
bandit	0	0	0	0	4	0	1.1s	0	PASSED	MED (g)
cdk-nag	0	0	0	0	0	0	6.4s	0	PASSED	MED (g)
cfn-nag	0	0	0	0	0	0	8ms	0	PASSED	MED (g)
checkov	0	0	0	0	0	0	5.2s	0	PASSED	MED (g)
detect-secrets	0	0	0	0	0	0	1.0s	0	PASSED	MED (g)
grype	0	0	0	0	0	0	45.2s	0	PASSED	MED (g)
npm-audit	0	0	0	0	0	0	163ms	0	PASSED	MED (g)
opengrep	0	0	0	0	0	0	<1ms	0	SKIPPED	MED (g)
semgrep	0	0	0	0	0	0	<1ms	0	MISSING	MED (g)
syft	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.3s	0	PASSED	MED (g)