Skip to content

docs: bring both READMEs up to date with the merged posture/provenance/config-attack work - #29

Closed
trionnemesis wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-handoff-format-injg75
Closed

docs: bring both READMEs up to date with the merged posture/provenance/config-attack work#29
trionnemesis wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/issue-handoff-format-injg75

Conversation

@trionnemesis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What changed

Follow-up to #28 (merged): both READMEs were left describing the pre-#25/#26/#27 state (four scenarios, 4/10 OWASP categories, three dashboard planes). This brings them current:

  • Scenario count: four → eight bundled scenarios, everywhere both files count them (scope bullet, architecture tree).
  • OWASP Agentic coverage: 4/10 → 8/10, with the full list of covered category ids (AAI001/002/003/004/006/007/008/009).
  • New capability rows: "Static posture ingestion" and "Run provenance" added to the "What it does" table in both languages.
  • Dashboard description: now mentions the fourth static_posture plane alongside project/purple/Skill Assurance.
  • Architecture tree: added the posture/ subpackage.
  • Trust and safety posture: two new bullets — a scanner's grade is never a verdict; a verdict says how it was proven.
  • Contributing: the detection-rule bullet now also points at the proposed 100901100904 rule ids for AGT-CONFIG-*.

Every number quoted (8 scenarios, 8/10 categories, which category ids) was verified against the actual catalogue on this branch (ScenarioCatalog.from_dir("scenarios").coverage()), not copied from memory.

Type

  • New scenario (Attack–Detection Contract)
  • Evidence collector
  • Executor
  • Evaluator / verdict logic
  • MCP gateway surface
  • Docs / ADR
  • Fix

Purple coverage

Question Answer
Which scenario(s) cover this change? n/a — documentation only, no code changed
Does it change how a verdict is produced? No
Does it widen what the MCP gateway can reach? No

Checks

  • make check passes (no code changed by this PR; verified on the base it was written against)
  • Scenario/coverage counts in both READMEs cross-checked against ScenarioCatalog.coverage() output, not asserted from memory

Notes for the reviewer

Docs-only change, no source touched. Both languages were edited in parallel, line by line, so a reviewer comfortable in either can spot-check against the other.


Generated by Claude Code

…e/config-attack work

Reflect the current repository state after #28 (issues #25, #26, #27):
eight bundled scenarios (was four), 8/10 OWASP Agentic categories covered
(was 4/10), the new posture/ subpackage in the architecture tree, the
static_posture plane on the dashboard, and two new trust/safety bullets for
"a scanner's grade is never a verdict" and "a verdict says how it was
proven". README.zh-TW.md mirrors every change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VQU1vu7oKtMUZd8DSxZRzJ
trionnemesis pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2026
The English README was corrected in #34; this closes the same gaps on the
zh-TW side, and folds in the posture/provenance rows drafted in the still-open
PR #29 (whose README.md half is now redundant).

- OWASP Agentic coverage 4/10 -> 8/10, verified against `agentsec coverage`
- Bundled scenarios: four -> eight, naming the AGT-CONFIG-* attack shapes;
  scenarios/ is eight worked examples
- Two capability rows that had no zh-TW equivalent: static posture ingestion
  and run provenance
- Two trust-posture bullets: a scanner's score is never a verdict, and a
  verdict states how it was proven
- Architecture tree gains `inspect/` and `posture/`
- Detection rule ids gain 100901-100904; CLI table gains `get-run` and
  `mcp-contract`

The resource counts and the scan section were already current from #33, so
they are untouched. Both READMEs now state the same facts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MhAYvfhZE3xs6KX5vWyukX
trionnemesis added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2026
The English README was corrected in #34; this closes the same gaps on the
zh-TW side, and folds in the posture/provenance rows drafted in the still-open
PR #29 (whose README.md half is now redundant).

- OWASP Agentic coverage 4/10 -> 8/10, verified against `agentsec coverage`
- Bundled scenarios: four -> eight, naming the AGT-CONFIG-* attack shapes;
  scenarios/ is eight worked examples
- Two capability rows that had no zh-TW equivalent: static posture ingestion
  and run provenance
- Two trust-posture bullets: a scanner's score is never a verdict, and a
  verdict states how it was proven
- Architecture tree gains `inspect/` and `posture/`
- Detection rule ids gain 100901-100904; CLI table gains `get-run` and
  `mcp-contract`

The resource counts and the scan section were already current from #33, so
they are untouched. Both READMEs now state the same facts.


Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MhAYvfhZE3xs6KX5vWyukX

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Closing as superseded rather than merged.

Both READMEs were brought up to date on main by #34 (scope facts stale since the agent-configuration family) and #36 (zh-TW), and #33 corrected the resource counts again on top of that. This branch's diff predates all three, so merging it now would regress the numbers it was originally written to fix.

The README work still outstanding is the split into an engineer quick start and a security/platform setup path — tracked as Adoption — open in docs/roadmap.md, not here.


Generated by Claude Code

@trionnemesis
trionnemesis deleted the claude/issue-handoff-format-injg75 branch August 10, 2026 10:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants