Redaction Gate

Adapting this skill: filenames below name roles in a document set rather than literal paths. docs/standing-documents.md describes that set, what each file does, and the tier scheme this procedure assumes. Read it once and the pointers resolve; substitute your own filenames freely.

Run this before anything crosses a tier boundary outward. The governing rule in CLAUDE.md is that the pass must actually run and actually be checked, never assumed to have happened already, and that it applies even to Public-tier output that was derived from higher-tier material.

Take one argument: the path or description of the candidate content. If none was given, ask what is being published and where it is going before proceeding.

Step 1: Establish direction and destination

Name the source tier and the destination explicitly. The gate applies to outward movement. Common destinations, all of which count:

• A commit or push into any Git working tree
• A repomix pack intended to leave this machine
• A vendor API call, including a sub-agent running on a different account
• A document handed to a person outside the tier's audience
• Any published artifact or page

If the destination is inward (a vendor response arriving with something sensitive in it), stop and say so. Whether this gate covers the inbound direction is an open question in agents/claude/lead-handoff.md, not a settled rule, and it is not this skill's job to settle it unilaterally.

Step 2: Build the check corpus

Derive the match terms from the local restricted material, not from memory and not from a list hardcoded in this file. A hardcoded list of sensitive terms would itself be a sensitive artifact sitting in an unprotected location.

Read the restricted tier and the sensitive-material inventory, and assemble:

• Named entities: people, companies, working titles, product names
• Identifiers: account names, hostnames, network topology, device names
• Credential shapes: key prefixes, token formats, anything matching the credential patterns already enumerated in .gitignore
• Reasoning fragments: strategic rationale that is restricted regardless of whether any name appears alongside it

Step 3: Check the candidate

Match the candidate content against the corpus. Report every hit with its location and the tier of the material it matched.

Then apply the content-depth principle, which catches what a term match cannot. Public and Internal carry almost nothing sensitive regardless of audience width, because the concern there is optics rather than access. Confidential carries operational behavior with entities abstracted into categories. Only Restricted carries actual reasoning and real named entities.

So ask the question a term list cannot answer: does this text reveal the reasoning behind a decision, even with every name removed? If yes, it is Restricted content in disguise and moving it downward requires stripping the reasoning, not just the names.

Check the register as well. The antithetical "X, not Y" construction and self-narrating asides tend to arrive together with decision archaeology. Their presence is a signal that provenance material has leaked into a human-facing document.

Derived values

A corpus match cannot see a value computed from restricted content rather than copied out of it. A documentation drift checker records a hash of a cited passage inside the document that cites it, so a document can carry a fingerprint of material its reader is not cleared for while containing none of that material's words. The Step 2 pass never flags it, because the hash matches no string in the corpus.

Check syntactically instead. Block any citation comment in the candidate whose source path does not resolve inside the outbound set:

<!-- cite: src=<path>#<anchor> sha256=<digest> seen=<date> -->

A citation pointing outside what is being published references material the recipient is not receiving, and its digest was computed from that material. Strip it. The check needs no index of known digests, and assembling one would collect the very fingerprints it exists to control.

Carry the general shape past this one case. A value derived from higher-tier content travels under the tier of what it came from, and the ones a gate can actually catch are those a regex recognizes by their own syntax.

Step 4: Report and hand off the decision

Produce a findings list: each hit, its tier, and a specific proposed redaction.

Propose a redaction only where the content is unnecessary. Necessary and load-bearing content is never quietly removed or genericized, even when it is sensitive. Where a finding is load-bearing, halt and warn: state what it is, why it is sensitive, and what removing it would cost, then let the human decide.

The failure this prevents is a gate reporting a clean result because it silently broke the thing it was checking. Genericizing an example, a path, or a procedure until a reader cannot act on it is a redaction on paper and a deletion in effect. If a document stops working without a passage, that passage is a decision for the human rather than a match for the gate to resolve.

A worked case from the first real run: the pass genericized a repomix allow-list into placeholder directory names, which cost every adopter a working example and bought no security, since the directory names were not sensitive. A dated coverage statistic in the same file was correctly removed. Same file, same pass, and the difference was necessity rather than sensitivity.

Do not perform the outward action. Do not describe the content as cleared. Confirmation authority for anything sensitive is shared with the human, not held by any agent alone. Present the analysis and a recommendation, and let the human make the call in dialogue.

If the pass found nothing, say that it found nothing and note what it could not check. A clean result from a mechanical pass is not clearance to send. Credential scanners in general miss a substantial share of what they are pointed at, so a passing scan is one input to the decision rather than the decision itself.