Skip to content

Security: bbulman/workshop-synthesizer

Security

SECURITY.md

Security and Privacy

This plugin handles workshop synthesis material — interview transcripts, sticky exports, decision logs, post-mortem chats. That material is often confidential. A few things you should know, and one thing to report.

What the plugin does with your data

  • The plugin reads files from your local disk via the standard Claude Code Read tool.
  • The plugin sends those files to whichever LLM you've configured Claude Code to use.
  • The plugin does not send your data to me, to Workshopr.io, to a tracking endpoint, or to any third-party service beyond your configured model provider.
  • The plugin does not retain your data after the session. Any persistence is on you and on Claude Code.

What you should do with your data

Before pasting client material into the plugin, run the four-question check from Chapter 3 of the book:

  1. Consent — does your interview/workshop consent form actually allow third-party model processing?
  2. Data retention — is your model provider's no-training setting on?
  3. Jurisdiction — does GDPR, HIPAA, FERPA, or sector-specific law apply? If yes, the LLM provider becomes your subprocessor under the law. Paperwork follows.
  4. Anonymization — strip full names, email addresses, employee IDs, account numbers. The recipes work on stripped material.

If you can't clear all four for a given engagement, the recipes are not the right move. Run the synthesis by hand.

Reporting a security issue

If you find:

  • A prompt injection that escapes the human-authorship pauses (an agent runs through [INTERPRET] or [PRIORITIZE] without stopping for you),
  • A path-traversal or file-access issue in any pipeline agent,
  • A way the plugin sends data anywhere other than your configured model provider,

email me directly at bill@workshopr.io with [synthesis-playbook security] in the subject. Don't open a public issue for security reports.

I will respond within 7 days. I am one person; please be patient and don't disclose publicly before we've had time to fix.

What is not a security issue

  • The model produced a bad cluster, an awkward interpretation, or a slop-flavored deliverable. That's a recipe-quality issue. Open a regular issue and tell me what failed and how.
  • The model refused to engage with workplace-friction content. That's an LLM-policy thing, not a plugin thing. Try a different model.

The recipes are yours. The work is yours. The data is yours. Handle it like it is.

There aren't any published security advisories