Licence

This pack

Everything in this brief pack — the nine numbered documents, code__chat-pane-samples.md, 09__source-manifest.csv, this file and README.md — is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

Attribution: Dinis Cruz, with AI co-authorship (Claude, Anthropic).

In code__chat-pane-samples.md, the sg.llm.* calls are the shipped API contract; the surrounding UI code was written for this pack. Say which half is which when publishing — a reader needs to know what is a contract and what is an example.

The site this pack commissions

The entire content of llms.sgit.ai is CC BY 4.0, consistent with the network. Stamp every raw markdown document; gate with licence-audit.py --check.

The code quoted throughout is Apache-2.0 — SGraph-AI__App__Send and the vault-html guides. Retain the notice where snippets run long.

⚠️ Do not create a second source of truth

The corpus already refused to, deliberately:

"No — and deliberately. It belongs in the two homes that already exist: AUTHORING.md — the canonical window.sg.* contract. Adding a competing document would create a second source of truth that drifts."

That reasoning applies to this site. AUTHORING.md stays canonical; the site generates its reference from it and says so on the page. 07__ §2, 08__ Q1.

⚠️ Keys — this site is the most likely place in the estate to leak one

Rule 13 of the estate's code rules: "No vault keys in Git… If one appears in a diff, block the commit."

Every page here is about credentials, so:

Every sample uses an obviously-fake placeholder. Never a realistic-looking key.
Add sk-or-, sgit_vk1_ and OpenRouter key shapes to the CI leak check before the first sample page ships.
If the demo vault in 06__ §4 is built: read key only, and only after spend caps are set. A vault with an LLM key configured carries a credential — publishing its read key shares the ability to spend it (03__ §6).

Publish the security gap

03__ §5. The corpus states plainly that CSP egress lockdown is not built, and that this is "the gap that turns the current design from a convenience into a guarantee."

Publish it, unsoftened, within one click of the front-page claim. Publishing a known limitation of your own security design is the estate's own standard — the vault catalogue publishes its own key-exposure incident, and the reality-document rule is "briefs are aspirations, not facts."

Do not publish an exploitation path, and do not frame it as a vulnerability disclosure. It is a scope statement: the bridge protects the credential you trusted us with; it does not prevent all egress.

Do not publish

library/alchemist/materials/ (whole tree) · the positioning and competitor briefs · team/roles/appsec/reviews/02/21/…pki-architecture-security-revised.md ("an attack roadmap for live code") · team/roles/grc/reviews/02/19/ (names a private individual with signature blocks).

Tier-2 rows are marked HOLD — the injection material must not be published until 08__ Q3 has an answer.

Accuracy

The API is eight months old and still moving — listen and imagePart landed a day after the rest of it. Verify every claim against the shipped code, not only against AUTHORING.md, and date the contract on the page.

The corpus counts here (442 OpenRouter files, 92 injection, 144 Ollama, 2 cost-per-token) were measured in this session. Generate them or date them.

This file is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

/briefs/code__chat-pane-samples.md