Reconstruct a repository supply-chain incident

Why use this

1. A suspected repository incident can produce fragments that disagree about timing, authorship or what code actually reached users. A suspicious commit alone may not establish compromise, and an appealing narrative can outrun the evidence when gaps are filled with assumptions.

2. An evidence registry could keep observations, competing explanations and unknowns separate while preserving traceability. Security owners could review a defensible timeline and decide what further authorized investigation or disclosure is justified without exposing secrets or making premature accusations.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile source timestamps and compare hypotheses against evidence while identifying unsupported attribution.

Simpler alternative

Use a manual incident worksheet when the evidence set is small and the chronology is straightforward.

Unsuitable when

The investigation lacks defensive authorization or would execute suspicious code or publicly accuse individuals.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Investigation scope

   Owner

   Security owner

   Minimum scope

   Named repository, authorized time window and defensive questions

   Quality check

   Separate evidence collection from remediation or outreach.

2. Name

   Evidence descriptors

   Owner

   Authorized investigator

   Minimum scope

   Fictional commit, release and access-event metadata

   Quality check

   Record provenance, time semantics and missing sources.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Offline fictional metadata and a private evidence-ledger design.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, archive completeness, repository access and timestamp reliability.

External actions requiring approval

1. Expanded investigation scope, paid queries, outreach and disclosure; suspicious code stays unexecuted.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Evidence-linked timeline with hypothesis support, contradictions, gaps and redaction requirements.

Critical checks

1. Observed facts are separated from inference and attribution.

2. Secrets and unnecessary personal details are excluded from any proposed report.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection was performed for this overlay; use the canonical source-outcome references.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A commit timestamp is treated as the time code reached users.

   Why it matters

   The timeline may misidentify the exposure window.

   Proposed response

   Separate commit, build and release events and mark delivery timing unknown.

2. Signal

   One account action is treated as proof of the account holder's intent.

   Why it matters

   The report could falsely attribute malicious conduct.

   Proposed response

   Remove the attribution and present only the supported event and unresolved explanations.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define evidence handling, provenance and disclosure ownership.

Ongoing review

1. Reconcile contradictions and inspect report redactions.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: evidence availability, query costs and specialist investigation effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional incident ledger contains conflicting commit/release times and an unsupported accusation tied to an account event.

Acceptance checks

1. Separate exposure timing from commit timing.

2. Replace attribution with a bounded evidence statement.

Stop conditions

1. Live investigation, suspicious-code execution, private data or third-party contact is required.

Limits

1. This proposed ledger exercise is not a forensic finding and establishes neither compromise nor responsibility.