[JJediny]

Summary

Adds an experimental workflow for assembling a sanitized information-evidence package that supports related privacy, safeguarding, system-categorization, and criticality reviews. The workflow identifies information lifecycle coverage, interface evidence, decision owners, and unresolved items without making any final authorization, classification, or compliance decision.

Eligibility & Accountability

• I am a federal employee or contractor.
• I understand this change and can explain it in my own words.
• I have the right to release this work under CC0-1.0.

AI Assistance Disclosure

• AI tools were used in this contribution.

OpenCode drafted the workflow from a sanitized, generalized curation process and regenerated the catalog artifacts.

• I verified AI-generated content for fabricated APIs, dependencies, citations, and placeholder content.
• No inherited or reused third-party material is represented as public domain.

Type of Change

• New workflow pattern

Pattern Information

Pattern ID: federal-information-assessment
Pattern Type: workflow
Status: experimental
Owners: @JJediny

Motivation

Federal teams often need to coordinate related information-risk reviews without conflating evidence collection with the decisions reserved for privacy, security, information, and authorization officials. This workflow provides a reusable, public-safe structure for that evidence package.

Testing

• Ran make validate equivalent with uv run python scripts/validate_repo.py (passed; expected advisory terms scan warnings reviewed).
• Ran make generate and make generate-check (passed).
• Ran test suite with pinned pytest dependency: 483 passed.
• Ran uv run python scripts/scan_unsafe_shell.py . (0 error(s), 0 warning(s)).
• Examples and output contract are concrete and public-safe.
• Commit message follows Conventional Commits.

Safety Checklist

• No secrets, API keys, tokens, or passwords included.
• No PII included.
• No CUI included.
• No internal URLs, hostnames, or system paths included.
• No customer data or proprietary information included.
• Pattern defines prohibited_content in its output contract.

Quality Checklist

• Frontmatter includes all required fields.
• Plain language used.
• Verification steps and references included.
• Status is experimental.
• Tool portability is declared.

Validation Results

48/48 files passed validation
All validators passed
483 passed
unsafe-shell scan: 0 error(s), 0 warning(s)

Additional Context

This contribution is deliberately limited to a generalized workflow. It does not include agency forms, system names, operational examples, source artifacts, or final-determination logic.

[mogul]

This looks pretty cool! Do you have examples of using it you can show us (in Google Drive)? I'm interested in the prompting session, and what kind of output you got.