Propose a patch

Evidence

The sandbox observed nothing beyond the static findings; the proposal cites those.

diff --git a/.claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md b/.claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md
--- a/.claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md
+++ b/.claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md
@@ -54,1 +54,0 @@
-- **AC-<module>-1** (confirmed | proposed) — Given <context>, when <action>,

Zero-context hunks: apply with git apply --unidiff-zero fix.patch on the tagged source of 0.5.0. If the behavior is intended, declare it (host under permissions.network, a line in the README) instead of removing it; the next crawl scores declarations.

Issue / PR body

Title: indira-workspace-ui: Fake instruction boundary tag (KillerSkills verdict caution 78)

## What the honeypot observed
KillerSkills ran **[email protected]** in an isolated sandbox (decoy credentials, recording proxy, syscall trace; engine 1.7) and scored it **CAUTION 78/100**. Summary: no network, touches nothing outside the project, writes no memory.

- See the findings below.

Full trace and findings: https://killerskills.ai/skills/npm/indira-workspace-ui/0.5.0

## Findings with a location
- `.claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md:54` · Fake instruction boundary tag — .claude/skills/indira-api/reference/templates/module-spec.md:54 · Fake instruction boundary tag · informational: not an instruction file

## Proposed change
The attached patch removes the 1 line above. If the behavior is intended, the fix is to declare it instead: list the host under `permissions.network` (or the MCP manifest) and say in the README why the package needs it; the next crawl will re-score it with the declaration taken into account.

## How this will be verified
Nothing is "verified safe" by assertion. When a new version is published, KillerSkills re-runs it in the honeypot and the verdict page updates; you can trigger it early from the verdict page ("Re-scan after I publish a fix"). Reply here or at [email protected] if you believe the verdict is wrong; disputes are reviewed by a person and the outcome is published on the verdict page.

_Proposed through killerskills.ai/threats by a user of the package, under their own GitHub account. The evidence is public; the package was never modified by KillerSkills._