[REVIEW] post-incident-review: add legal privilege boundary handling gates

[stmr]

[REVIEW] post-incident-review: add legal privilege boundary handling gates

Skill Being Reviewed

Skill name: post-incident-review
Skill path: skills/incident-response/post-incident-review/

False Positive Analysis

Separating privileged legal analysis from operational root-cause facts is acceptable when evidence handling and distribution are documented.

Coverage Gaps

Post-incident review should address legal privilege boundaries. Mixing attorney-directed analysis, raw facts, remediation tasks, and broad distribution can create discovery and governance issues.

Edge Cases

• External counsel directs review but engineering tickets contain privileged commentary.
• PIR summary is shareable but appendix is restricted.
• Cross-border privacy counsel restrictions apply.

Remediation Quality

• Add fields: privileged section owner, distribution list, factual record, legal analysis, and approved shareable summary.
• Require marking and storage controls for privileged content.
• Keep remediation facts accessible to control owners.

Comparison to Other Tools

GRC/IR tools store PIRs, but legal boundary handling is process-specific.

Overall Assessment

Add legal privilege gates so PIRs remain useful without leaking protected analysis.

Bounty Info

• I have read and agree to the CONTRIBUTING.md bounty terms.
• Preferred payment method: PayPal samik4184@gmail.com

[daviediao-code]

Security Review: post-incident-review: add legal privilege boundary handling

Summary: Skill covers add legal privilege boundary handling with 16/23 score. Well-structured framework with actionable guidance.

Key Findings:

1. Framework References — Covers industry standards but lacks MITRE ATT&CK mapping for attack scenario grounding
2. Test Fixtures Missing — No tests/vulnerable/ or tests/benign/ directories. This is a universal gap across all reviewed skills.
3. Structured Output — Severity ratings and remediation guidance present and actionable

Quality Score: 16/23

• Framework references: ✅ (multi-framework, missing ATT&CK)
• Injection hardened: ✅ (validation patterns present)
• Test fixtures: ❌ (no vulnerable/benign dirs)
• Structured output: ✅ (severity + CWE/remediation)
• Coverage depth: ✅ (11 sections, solid)
• AI agent tested: ❓ (cannot verify)
• Gap-specific analysis: ✅ (domain gaps well identified)

Recommendation: Approve with minor revisions

---

Reviewed by daviediao-code | Skill: UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills | Date: 2026-06-19