Fix "missing scope: operator.read" in OpenClaw (2026 Guide)

If you see error: missing scope: operator.read openclaw or openclaw error: missing scope: operator.read, this is the page you need.

Permission denied is one of the most common OpenClaw skill failures.

The good news: most cases are configuration mismatches, not broken skills.

This guide gives you a fast and safe recovery workflow.

TL;DR

• Classify the failure layer first (file, command, network, executable mode), then adjust permissions.
• Grant only the missing minimal scope; avoid broad allow-all policy changes.
• Start with non-destructive reproduction and validation before expanding to real tasks.

Table of contents

• Who this guide is for
• 1) Classify the error first
• 2) Compare skill requirement vs runtime policy
• 3) Reproduce with non-destructive command
• 4) Fix by least privilege
• 5) Verify external dependencies
• 6) Add rollback trigger before broader rollout
• Error-to-fix quick table
• EACCES vs EPERM quick mapping
• Permission denied use-case mapping
• Permission profile template
• Incident evidence checklist
• Metrics snapshot
• Failure -> Fix example
• Limitations and scope
• Conclusion: permission denied decision rule
• FAQ
• Next steps
• References

Who this guide is for

• Teams operating OpenClaw skills in controlled runtime policies
• Engineers handling failed runs in staging or production-like environments
• Maintainers responsible for least-privilege rollout decisions

If the failure source is identity platform policy or enterprise SSO enforcement, involve platform security owners early.

OpenClaw error: missing scope: operator.read

Treat this as a runtime permission mismatch first, not a broken install.

Start with three checks:

1. Verify the skill's declared requiredPermissions.
2. Compare current runtime policy and command prefix approvals.
3. Reproduce with a non-destructive dry-run before changing broader policy.

1) Classify the error first

Before changing permissions, identify which layer failed:

1. file access denied
2. shell command blocked
3. network call blocked
4. external tool not executable

This prevents over-granting permissions.

2) Compare skill requirement vs runtime policy

From the skill page, check requiredPermissions.

Then compare with your current runtime policy:

• sandbox mode
• allowed command prefixes
• network access settings

If policy is stricter than skill needs, you will get runtime denial even after successful install.

3) Reproduce with non-destructive command

Run a minimal test first:

Use this skill in dry-run mode and list each required permission before executing commands.

If that passes, move to a small real task.

4) Fix by least privilege

Use this order:

1. grant only missing permission scope
2. rerun minimal test
3. confirm no unrelated capability was opened

Avoid "allow everything" as a quick workaround.

5) Verify external dependencies

Sometimes permission denied is actually missing binary or bad executable mode.

Quick checks:

command -v <required-cli>
ls -l <script-or-binary>

If executable bit is missing, fix local script permissions in your own repo workflow.

6) Add rollback trigger before broader rollout

Stop and roll back if:

• core workflow still fails after policy fix
• granting needed scope introduces unacceptable risk
• repeated errors appear across environments

Error-to-fix quick table

EACCES vs EPERM quick mapping

Many teams group all denials into one bucket, but these two errors often point to different actions:

Treating EACCES and EPERM as the same issue often leads to over-granting permissions.

OpenClaw skill permission denied quick checklist

Use this quick sequence when incidents happen:

1. Capture the exact error string and command context.
2. Map the failure to layer: file, shell, network, or executable mode.
3. Compare requiredPermissions against current runtime policy.
4. Apply the smallest permission change and rerun dry-run.
5. Validate in the target environment before broader rollout.

Skipping step 1 often causes teams to treat different failures as the same issue and over-grant permissions.

Permission denied use-case mapping

Permission profile template

Use this template to document stable per-skill permissions:

skill: <skill-name>
environment: <local/staging/prod>
required_permissions:
  - file
  - shell:<scoped-prefix>
  - web:<scoped-domain>
dry_run_status: pass|partial|fail
rollback_triggers:
  - <trigger 1>
  - <trigger 2>
owner: <team or person>

Incident evidence checklist

Before requesting broader permissions, capture this minimum evidence set:

1. Exact command attempted and full error message
2. Runtime policy profile used in that environment
3. Whether failure reproduces in dry-run mode
4. Error code category (EACCES, EPERM, or other)
5. What changed right before the incident (policy/dependency/path)

This evidence pack prevents guesswork and shortens escalation review time.

Metrics snapshot

Method note: these numbers are from one incident-response sample (n=10 denial cases) and should be used as directional benchmarks.

Failure -> Fix example

• Failure: install succeeded but runtime command still failed because prefix approval was missing in the target environment.
• Fix: compare runtime policy line by line, approve only the required command family, and rerun dry-run before real execution.

Limitations and scope

• This guide covers common policy mismatches, not every infrastructure-specific security control.
• In enterprise environments, org-wide policy layers may override local fixes.
• If failures involve identity or SSO enforcement, involve platform/security owners early.

Conclusion: permission denied decision rule

Do not grant broad permissions as a first response. Classify the failure layer, apply the smallest viable permission change, and validate with non-destructive reruns. Escalate only when evidence shows policy alignment cannot resolve the incident.

FAQ

Why does permission denied keep returning after install?

Install only places files. Execution still depends on runtime policy and command approval rules in the active environment.

Is granting broad shell access a valid emergency fix?

It is a high-risk shortcut and should be avoided. Use minimal scoped permissions and verify behavior with non-destructive commands first.

What logs should we keep for postmortem analysis?

Record command attempted, policy profile, denied scope, environment, and exact remediation step that resolved the incident.

How can teams prevent repeat permission incidents?

Create per-skill permission profiles, enforce dry-run in CI or preflight checks, and document rollback triggers for every high-risk skill.

Recommended follow-up

After fixing once, document the exact permission profile per skill so your team does not repeat the same failure.

Related guides:

• How to Install OpenClaw Skills
• OpenClaw Skill Troubleshooting: 15 Common Errors
• OpenClaw Skill Security Checklist

Next steps

• Install workflow: How to Install OpenClaw Skills
• Risk review: OpenClaw Skill Security Checklist
• Pre-install checks: OpenClaw Skill Review Checklist Before Install

References

• OWASP Principle of Least Privilege
• POSIX File Permissions
• Node.js Errors: Common System Errors