coulomb/whitehat-security
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

repo.work.create_intake WHITEHAT-IN-0001

Browse source 
correlation_id: accd1603-b6b7-4b1d-a9ec-d3e78517a33f
reason: Request own-voice layer declaration under §11
source: repo-manager

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
This commit is contained in:
repo-manager 2026-08-28 23:03:30 +02:00
parent 0d48f38c85
commit 8777a821ee
1 changed files with 37 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

37
intakes/intakes.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
# Intake records
## WHITEHAT-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
```yaml
id: WHITEHAT-IN-0001
kind: intake
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
layer model §11)'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
priority: low
owner: whitehat-security
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Staff
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
this is one of the eight that have not. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Staff. Offensive validation. Beyond
the label, one substantive item: gate-house authors the assurance specifications
T-01 to T-10 in the Active Secrets Management Canon and you execute them, with findings
returning through the conformance loop. That division — we specify, you attack and
judge whether the control actually held — should be in your words rather than ours,
and you should push back if specifying the tests from outside your repository is
the wrong shape. Contesting is a real option and costs nothing — the three repositories
that reviewed this model each returned a correction, two of which changed the standard.
If the proposed layer is wrong for what this repository actually does, that is more
useful to us than a label added to close a checkbox. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
created: '2026-08-28T21:03:30.332146Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:03:30.332146Z'
```