leak-record-classifier
Skill74 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub
Classify a client-provided leaked/breach-database CSV export (Maltego D4 format) against a subject's identity anchors (SSN, DOB, address, email) into confidence tiers, producing cleaned/filtered-out CSVs and a color-coded Excel deliverable. Use when: analyzing a leaked-records CSV, a Maltego D4 export, breach data for a named subject, "leaked database export", "reformat this CSV of records", filtering false-positive name matches out of a data broker/breach dump. NOT for: live OSINT collection (see the osint skill), report narrative writing (case-specific, stays bespoke per subject), or non-CSV evidence (see extract-intake.py for PDF/DOCX/image verbatim extraction).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- assafkip/investigators-copilotword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- assafkip/investigators-copilot★ 74100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- llms.txtllms.txt
- geo-sleuthSkill
- osintSkill
- analyzeSkill
- telegram-harvestSkill
- verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 46
Do a recon pass on the extracted CSV first (investigation/evidence/extracted/<stem>/text.md) to find the subject's real …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Leak Record Classifier
Shared scaffold for the recurring "client hands us a leaked-database CSV, find
the records that belong to our subject" task. Consolidated 2026-07-21 after two
cases (case-001-example, case-001-example) independently
rewrote the same ~250-line Maltego-parsing + classification + Excel-writing
scaffold from scratch, differing only in each subject's identity anchors.
Prerequisite -- ingest first (enforced by a hook, not optional)
The source CSV must already be registered as an EV-NNNN item and deterministically extracted before you write or run a classification script against it:
bash skills/osint/scripts/ingest-client-document.sh <file> <slug> document \
--case <case-folder> --provided-by "<who>"
python3 skills/osint/scripts/extract-intake.py --case <case-folder>skills/osint/scripts/evidence-pipeline-guard.py (wired as a
PostToolUse hook in .claude/settings.json) BLOCKS writing or running a script
under a case's investigation/evidence/scripts/ if either step above is
missing for any file in that case's investigation/intake/. This exists
because a prior case skipped both tools entirely (see
.claude/rules/evidence-capture-protocol.md's scar note).
Usage
- Copy
templates/case_classifier_template.pyto the case'sinvestigation/evidence/scripts/reformat_csv.py. - Do a recon pass on the extracted CSV first
(
investigation/evidence/extracted/<stem>/text.md) to find the subject's real SSN/DOB/address/email anchors -- do not guess, verify each one against actual rows, the way both origin cases did (grep for the SSN digit string, confirm DOB co-occurrence, check which addresses cluster together). - Fill in
TARGET_SSN_DIGITS,TARGET_DOB,CONFIRMED_ADDR_TOKENS,CONFIRMED_EMAILS, andclassify_row()in the copied file. Define your own tier vocabulary inTIER_CONFIG/CLEANED_TIERS/FILTERED_OUT_TIERS-- the two origin cases used different tiers (one had a "household" tier for a blended family, the other didn't need one) because every case's data is different. Don't force a case into tiers it doesn't need. - Precedence lesson (read this before writing classify_row): case-039 shipped an early version where an SSN-matches-but-DOB-conflicts row got silently absorbed into "confirmed" because a weaker address-match branch ran first and returned before the conflict check was reached. Check for genuine identifier conflicts FIRST, before any weaker corroborating signal can short-circuit past them. Leak databases (National Public Data especially) have real, documented record-matching quality issues.
- Run it:
python3 investigation/evidence/scripts/reformat_csv.py --case <case-folder>
What's shared vs. case-specific
Shared (lib/leak_csv.py) | Case-specific (the copied template) |
| Maltego Section 1/2/3 boundary detection | The subject's actual SSN/DOB/address/email anchors |
csv.DictReader parsing (handles embedded newlines in quoted fields) | classify_row() -- the tier logic and precedence rules |
| DOB/digit normalization helpers | Tier vocabulary and which tiers are "cleaned" vs "filtered out" |
| Colored multi-tab Excel writer | -- |
| Cleaned / filtered-out CSV writers | -- |
| CLI arg handling + path resolution | -- |
Report generation (the docx synopsis) stays entirely case-specific and is NOT
part of this skill -- every subject's findings, employment, household, and
narrative are genuinely different and don't benefit from a shared template
beyond what the report structure already gives (see any case's
output/briefs/generate-report.js for that pattern).
Origin cases (not migrated -- already delivered, left as-is)
investigations/case-001-example/investigation/evidence/scripts/reformat_csv.pyinvestigations/case-001-example/investigation/evidence/scripts/reformat_csv.py
Verification
lib/leak_csv.py was verified by reimplementing case-039's exact
classify_row() on top of it and confirming an identical classification
result against the real 170-row source CSV (37 confirmed / 8 flagged / 50
household / 6 excluded / 69 unrelated -- exact match, not approximate).
Known follow-up (not part of this skill, flagged separately)
A second, larger duplication exists: extract_intake.py / extract_all.py
variants live in 5 case folders (case-010, case-013, case-020, case-025,
case-028) alongside the canonical skills/osint/scripts/extract-intake.py,
all added in the same 2026-06-14 commit and never pruned. Some have real
per-case additions (e.g. case-020's ocr_hd.py, case-028's ocr_pass2.py),
so this needs a careful case-by-case review before consolidating, not a
blanket delete. Out of scope here.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

