github-safe-publisher
Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Prepare private work for safe public GitHub publishing. Use when the user asks to publish safely, turn private project work into a GitHub-safe artifact, sanitize a project, make a public case study, prepare material for GitHub, review a repo before pushing, or check whether files contain secrets, client data, raw prompts, logs, local paths, private source, or other sensitive material.
- Reads credentials
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- agents-md-writerSkill
- ai-image-run-pacingSkill
- automation-state-reconcilerSkill
- backup-readiness-auditorSkill
- brand-voice-linterSkill
- case-study-writerSkill
- client-delivery-auditorSkill
- client-intake-builderSkill
- client-workspace-scaffolderSkill
- code-deduplicatorSkill
- cold-outreach-writerSkill
- demo-animationSkill
- demo-animation-v2Skill
- discovery-briefSkill
- em-dash-removerSkill
- etsy-listing-optimizerSkill
- follow-up-radarSkill
- github-profile-proof-updaterSkill
- idea-inboxSkill
- implement-client-feedbackSkill
- lead-scorerSkill
- llms-txt-generatorSkill
- local-app-public-demoSkill
- media-spec-checkerSkill
- obsidian-daily-noteSkill
- ops-status-reportSkill
- outreach-pipeline-designerSkill
- php-form-mailerSkill
- proposal-writerSkill
- release-announcement-writerSkill
- remove-ai-image-metadataSkill
- research-brief-curatorSkill
- research-to-articleSkill
- screen-recorderSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- skill-builderSkill
- skill-reviewerSkill
- social-campaign-proof-trackerSkill
- skill-nameSkill
- thumbnail-legibility-checkSkill
- thumbnail-set-designerSkill
- vault-janitorSkill
- verify-public-claimsSkill
- web-scraperSkill
- website-change-verifierSkill
- windows-reinstall-plannerSkill
- write-evidence-backed-profileSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Very specific: line 15
Read references/public-safety-boundaries.md before deciding what can be reused, generalized, or removed.
- Distinctive: line 17
Remove or replace sensitive details: credentials, account data, client material, raw prompts, logs, databases, exports, local paths, …
- Distinctive: line 18
Run the scanner on the proposed public folder:
- Very specific: line 24
Read references/release-workflow.md before staging changes.
- Distinctive: line 35
If blocked, explain the minimum fix.
- Very specific: line 47
Use scripts/scan_public_safety.py for a deterministic first pass.
- Distinctive: line 65
Never run broad staging commands such as git add .
- Distinctive: line 66
Prefer staging named files only after inspecting them.
- Distinctive: line 75
Do not commit or push unless the user explicitly asks for that action after the safety review is clean.
- Distinctive: line 79
When preparing or reviewing a public candidate, respond with:
≈ “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
GitHub Safe Publisher
Overview
Use this skill to turn private project material into public-safe GitHub artifacts such as case studies, skill releases, README updates, demo notes, and example prompts. The skill produces a safety verdict and concrete next steps; it must not auto-commit, auto-push, publish, upload, send, or share anything without explicit human review.
Workflow
- Identify the intended public artifact: skill, case study, README section, demo screenshot note, example prompt, template, or changelog.
- Read
references/public-safety-boundaries.mdbefore deciding what can be reused, generalized, or removed. - Work from a copy or rewritten summary, not the private original. Prefer a sanitized draft folder before touching a public repo.
- Remove or replace sensitive details: credentials, account data, client material, raw prompts, logs, databases, exports, local paths, private source, and screenshots with private UI.
- Run the scanner on the proposed public folder:
python scripts/scan_public_safety.py path/to/public-candidate --no-baseline- Read
references/release-workflow.mdbefore staging changes. - Require manual review of
git status --short, the unstaged diff, and the staged diff before any commit or push.
Verdicts
Return one of these verdicts in every review:
BLOCK: Real secrets, credentials, raw private data, client-identifying material, local machine paths, databases, exports, logs, or unintended source files are present.REVIEW: The artifact is probably publishable after specific human checks or rewrites.READY: The artifact uses public-safe examples, passes the scanner, and has a clean manual diff review.
If blocked, explain the minimum fix. Do not rewrite blocked material into a public repo until the sensitive source is removed or generalized.
Sanitization Rules
- Replace real people, businesses, accounts, emails, phone numbers, domains, addresses, and project codenames with neutral examples.
- Replace credentials with placeholders such as
YOUR_API_KEY_HERE. - Convert raw private notes into public explanations; do not copy memory files, chat logs, prompts, or operational strategy verbatim.
- Publish patterns, workflows, and lessons. Keep implementation source, deployment details, private data, and system-of-record content private unless the user explicitly confirms they are public-safe.
- For screenshots, crop or recreate them with fake data. Do not publish account menus, browser tabs, analytics, emails, invoices, API dashboards, or file paths.
Scanner
Use scripts/scan_public_safety.py for a deterministic first pass. Treat it as a guardrail, not proof of safety.
Recommended commands:
python scripts/scan_public_safety.py path/to/candidate
python scripts/scan_public_safety.py path/to/candidate --no-baseline --json
python scripts/scan_public_safety.py path/to/candidate --no-baselineThe scanner checks risky filenames, file extensions, binary-like artifacts, local path patterns, credential terms, token formats, private-key blocks, and private/client wording. Folder scans use .public-safety-baseline.json when present to suppress known review findings; use --no-baseline to see the raw scan. A clean scan still requires human diff review.
Git Safety
Scanner reports withhold matched text and absolute input locations. Relative filenames may still identify private work, so keep reports private. Linked inputs are refused; unreadable content and incomplete enumeration prevent readiness. Excluded build/dependency folders and binary content are not a complete content audit.
The baseline file itself is scanned. Existing review fingerprints remain compatible for unchanged content, but blocking findings are never suppressed. Inspect matches privately at their locations rather than copying sensitive lines into chat or logs. Review the exact proposed release file list separately.
- Never run broad staging commands such as
git add .unless the user has already reviewed the whole repo state. - Prefer staging named files only after inspecting them.
- Always inspect:
git status --short
git diff -- path/to/file
git diff --cached- Do not commit or push unless the user explicitly asks for that action after the safety review is clean.
Output Format
When preparing or reviewing a public candidate, respond with:
- Verdict:
BLOCK,REVIEW, orREADY. - Public artifact type and target repo/folder.
- Files inspected or created.
- Scanner result summary.
- Remaining manual checks.
- Exact next commands, if any, without auto-running publish actions.
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.

