The guard's coverage.py turned out to be readable from a session here — the
read boundary covers llm-security only. Counting it instead of estimating
corrected two published numbers and surfaced the real conformance blocker.
Counted, not estimated: CORE_CASES holds 134 cases (128 caught, 6 gap), not
the "126 classes + 4 gaps-must-hold" the extraction plan claimed. 105 are
convertible to static input/expected; 29 assert a runtime API surface this
repository does not own, and are named as out of scope rather than faked.
Measured while counting, and the reason the corpus is still blocked: the
commons lexicon and the guard's are two ports of one source file, and they
disagree. 83/83 patterns correspond, 64 byte-identical, 6 differ only by
escaping and are proven equivalent by string identity, and 13 behave
differently — with a witness input for each and misses in both directions.
Cause is two different ReDoS mitigations of the same table: the Node side
bounds the run ({0,256}), the guard excludes the anchor character ([^><]).
Each has a recall cost the other does not.
No data file changed. Behaviour preservation is a v0.1.0 invariant, so the
divergence is reported to the owning repositories, not fixed here. The 8
hybrid severities the guard's port assigns are deliberately NOT copied in —
a second-hand port is not the producing module.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FaYqid3mejFmd9ZHsiHgp3
repo-standard's gate flagged 10 dead internal README links. Seven now
resolve because the files landed this session. The remaining three are
unlinked and marked "Planned, not in v0.1.0" rather than invented:
- signatures/malware-signatures.json — seed data not delivered
- spec/decode-pipeline.md — needs the decode implementation, which is engine
code and was not supplied. A normative spec guessed from a data dump would
be worse than an absent one: it would carry a Status: normative marker and
pass every convention check while saying nothing anyone verified.
- conformance/ — corpus form is still an open decision
The changelog claimed 0.1.0 shipped "a conformance corpus". It does not.
Rewritten to enumerate what is actually present, to state which files were
proven differentially and which one (calibration) carries verified: false,
and to name what is not included. Moved back under [Unreleased] because the
tag has not been cut.
README also now tells a reader that each data file records its own provenance
and verification strength, and which file currently says false.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FaYqid3mejFmd9ZHsiHgp3
Data+contract+fixtures repository for runtime-neutral LLM/agent security
detection. Charter is hard: no engine code, no dependencies, no runtime —
JSON data, normative specs and conformance fixtures only.
Scaffolding only; the seed data files land in follow-up commits from
verified source dumps (never from recollection).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0191AKc2qW6tmXDFSx1xn53q
