TAK: the event contract is implemented, the server protocol is not
The Team Awareness Kit ecosystem covers client applications, servers, plugins and mission data packages. SynapseCommand implements one part of it: the Cursor-on-Target event translation. This page states that boundary precisely, because the difference between speaking a format and integrating with a product is where most interoperability claims go wrong.
What TAK is
TAK is a family of government-owned situational awareness applications and the server infrastructure that connects them. Clients render a map, share position, exchange chat and pass geospatial objects between users.
Events on that network are carried as Cursor-on-Target documents. That is the part that is a format, and a format is something an external system can implement independently.
Everything else in the ecosystem is a product: the server's transport and authentication, client plugin frameworks, data package formats and the certification processes attached to them. Implementing the event format grants none of that.
Why this matters to a commander
TAK clients are widely fielded, which makes them the display most likely to already be in a user's hand.
A decision layer that can put a proposed scheme of manoeuvre onto that display, as a drawing the client already understands, avoids asking anyone to adopt new software at the edge.
It also avoids the more expensive alternative, which is a bespoke integration per client version.
The exact behaviour, not a capability claim
One adapter, published in the open integration layer, translates Cursor-on-Target events in both directions. The details of what it maps, which sentinels it translates and what it deliberately refuses are on the Cursor-on-Target page.
There is no TAK server protocol client. The published layer opens no sockets, performs no certificate enrolment, subscribes to no stream and builds no data packages.
There is no client plugin. No plugin is published, none is claimed, and no vendor or government certification has been sought or granted for one.
How CoT documents reach the SynapseCommand boundary in a given deployment is an integration design question, answered with the authority that owns the network, rather than something this contract decides.
- 01ImplementedCursor-on-Target event translation, both directions, published and harness verified.
- 02Not implementedTAK server protocol, transport, authentication and enrolment.
- 03Not implementedClient plugins for any TAK client.
- 04Not implementedMission data package creation or consumption.
- 05Not claimedAny endorsement, certification or partnership with a TAK client or server provider.
Which way the data actually moves
Into the canonical model
- CoT eventDelivered to the boundary by a mechanism agreed per deployment.
- Canonical objectsEntity and Event.
Out of the canonical model
- Canonical objectsEntity or plan object.
- CoT eventAtom or free-form drawing.
Where this data is used
Proposal to the edge
An approved course of action is emitted as a drawing that a TAK client can render. The approval happens before emission, at the human decision gate.
Edge reporting into the picture
Contact atoms become canonical objects the Blue-Force Posture Agent reasons over, with position source qualified rather than assumed.
Verification before commitment
An integration authority can run the published harness against the shipped fixtures before any deployment work is agreed.
Every claim above has a file behind it
These paths are in the public repository, published under Apache 2.0. The adapter module for this page is tak.
Source and fixtures
- Adapter sourcepackages/cdm/synapse_cdm/adapters/tak.py
The whole of what is implemented for this ecosystem.
- Fixturespackages/cdm/synapse_cdm/fixtures/tak/
Shipped event fixtures with golden canonical output.
Test evidence
- Harness testtests/test_cdm_tak_adapter.py
Replayed by the validation harness shipped in the same package, which runs six checks per fixture including a never-drop lossless check.
Manifest-backed assurance
Maturity is declared in each generated adapter manifest and checked against suite eligibility. VERIFIED is a separate claim-status axis. Neither means external certification or integration with a named system.
takMaturity L4Claim VERIFIED
What these maturity levels mean
L3 means required provenance survives translation. L4 adds applicable roundtrip evidence. L5 would require every applicable public conformance gate to pass. L6 requires an independent real implementation or system and cannot be awarded from this repository's synthetic fixtures.
What is claimed, and what is not
The published adapter implements both translation directions: the format into the canonical data model, and the canonical data model back out to the format. Both directions are replayed by the validation harness against shipped fixtures.
Last reviewed against the published implementation on 2026-09-06.
Limitations
- Speaking Cursor-on-Target is not the same as integrating with a TAK server. This page exists to keep the two apart.
- No completed government deployment is claimed on the basis of this adapter.
- No plugin, certification, endorsement or partnership exists with any TAK client or server provider.
Security boundary
- No certificates, enrolment procedures, server addresses or credentials appear in the published layer or on this site.
- The decision runtime is not published. Only the data contract is.
Frequently asked
- Does SynapseCommand integrate with TAK Server?
- SynapseCommand implements the Cursor-on-Target event format that the TAK ecosystem carries. It does not implement the server protocol, transport or authentication, and no completed deployment against a government TAK server is claimed.
- Is there an ATAK or WinTAK plugin?
- No. No plugin is published and none is claimed. Any plugin work would be a separate, scoped engagement agreed with the authority that owns the client baseline.
- So what would an integration actually involve?
- Agreeing how Cursor-on-Target documents reach the SynapseCommand boundary in your environment, and confirming that the conventions in the published mapping match the ones your network uses. Both can be checked against published code before any commitment.