Claims, outcomes, versions, review state, approved summaries, limitations, and change history.
Learning roadmap
From free training to credentials people can trust
The training library is only the first stage. This page shows what comes next, what has to be true before each stage ships, and where independent reviewers can challenge the work.
Current truth
The training library is live. Course mode, completion certificates, skills credentials, independent recognition, and accreditation are not.
What ships next
The roadmap, in dependency order
Each stage depends on the one before it. Dates will be added when the underlying work is scoped well enough to make them meaningful.
- 01Complete
Training library
Interactive command-line and security labs are live and free to use. They do not currently award a certificate or credential.
- 02In progress
Structured course paths
Define versioned outcomes, lesson sequences, practice requirements, and claim limits for CLIP, CLIO, and CLIA.
- 03Not started
Completion records
Add course mode and verifiable completion certificates once the course contracts and completion rules are frozen.
- 04Not started
Independent skills assessment
Build separate assessment forms, frozen rubrics, blinded evidence, trained raters, and an appeals process before issuing skills credentials.
- 05Not started
External recognition
Pursue independent recognition or accreditation only after the programs have operating evidence and qualified outside review.
Review & assurance
Help verify the program
Inspect what each program intends to teach, the evidence behind it, the limits on each claim, and the work still open to qualified reviewers. A stage moves only when its evidence exists. Automated validation can support a human review, but it cannot impersonate one.
Answer keys, seeds, source artifacts, private findings, learner transcripts, ratings, appeals, and deliberation.
Solvable does not mean pedagogically sound. Complete does not mean competent. Mapped does not mean endorsed.
Program register
Proposed course families
CLIP supplies one shared command-line foundation; learners can then continue toward offensive work through CLIO or defensive analysis through CLIA. Many certifications survey a broad domain. This program is intentionally narrower: CLI-first practice, deterministic labs that can be reproduced and audited, and a clear claim boundary for each path.
clip-course-v0.1.0
Command Line Practitioner (CLIP)
Intended claim
Performs foundational command-line work in a controlled Linux security lab.
Draft completion claimCompleted the required learning activities for the named version of Command Line Practitioner.
- Course contract
- review ready
- Assessment blueprint
- clip-assessment-v0.1
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-26
- Content review
- 0 of 51 targets fully approved
- Stale review targets
- 0
Outcomes and present coverage
Navigate an unfamiliar Linux filesystem and locate relevant files without a worked command path.
Inspect users, permissions, processes, services, and system state and cite the evidence supporting a conclusion.
Current tasks emphasize discovery more than permission changes, signals, or service operations.Compose shell text-processing steps and independently discover appropriate command options.
Quoting, redirection, structured data, and independent man-page use need deeper coverage.Complete and debug a small program that transforms unfamiliar input data and handles failure explicitly.
Enumerate network services, establish authorized remote access, and distinguish credential and encoding risks.
Current labs do not yet collect enough professional explanation or remediation evidence.In progressAuthored
The training library and draft outcome blueprint exist; learner-facing course mode is not yet frozen.
Not startedTechnical review
Automated validation is not a named human technical approval.
Not startedPedagogical review
A qualified instructional-design reviewer has not approved the course.
Not startedAssessment-design review
The outcome blueprint and any independent forms still require specialist review.
Not startedPiloted
No operational learner pilot or standard-setting evidence exists.
Not startedApproved L0
No completion certificate is issued.
Not startedApproved L1
No skills credential is issued.
Not startedIndependently accepted
No outside organization has yet documented reliance on the credential.
Not startedAccredited
CLI-Games does not claim accreditation.
Human review
Linux and security technical reviewOpen
Instructional-design and pedagogy reviewOpen
Assessment-design reviewOpen
Independent assessment forms
clip-form-aprototype; automated validation passing
Human review not started. No cut score. Not credential eligible.
Claim limits
- The current library is training, not a certification exam.
- Framework mappings are drafts and do not imply NICE, employer, government, or accreditor approval.
- Automated scenario and solver checks establish consistency and solvability, not teaching quality or occupational competence.
- CLIP Form A is a design prototype with no cut score, pass/fail result, or credential authority.
clio-course-v0.1.0
Command Line Operator (CLIO)
Intended claim
Performs scoped introductory offensive-security testing in a controlled lab.
Draft completion claimCompleted the required learning activities for the named version of Command Line Operator.
- Course contract
- draft
- Assessment blueprint
- clio-assessment-v0.1
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-26
- Content review
- 0 of 165 targets fully approved
- Stale review targets
- 0
Outcomes and present coverage
Translate an authorization statement into test scope, stop conditions, and a minimally destructive plan.
Course-context rules of engagement are prototyped, but scope decisions are not yet practiced, captured, or assessed.Enumerate an unfamiliar target and validate representative server-side, client-side, and access-control flaws.
Breadth is strong, but current checks largely preserve teaching topology and answer locations.Chain authorized access, credential recovery, privilege escalation, and lateral movement while preserving reproducible evidence.
Cleanup, false-positive control, and evidence minimization are not consistently required.Use static and dynamic evidence to explain a small program behavior relevant to the engagement.
The lab exercises the tooling, but no CLIO scenario collects the evidence-citation or reasoning this outcome requires — clip-capstone-a is currently the only scenario with an assessment form.Write a concise finding that separates evidence, impact, exploit preconditions, primary remediation, and defense in depth.
Debriefs model parts of a finding, but learners do not yet author or revise one.In progressAuthored
The training library and draft outcome blueprint exist; learner-facing course mode is not yet frozen.
Not startedTechnical review
Automated validation is not a named human technical approval.
Not startedPedagogical review
A qualified instructional-design reviewer has not approved the course.
Not startedAssessment-design review
The outcome blueprint and any independent forms still require specialist review.
Not startedPiloted
No operational learner pilot or standard-setting evidence exists.
Not startedApproved L0
No completion certificate is issued.
Not startedApproved L1
No skills credential is issued.
Not startedIndependently accepted
No outside organization has yet documented reliance on the credential.
Not startedAccredited
CLI-Games does not claim accreditation.
Human review
Linux and security technical reviewOpen
Instructional-design and pedagogy reviewOpen
Assessment-design reviewOpen
Claim limits
- The current library is training, not a certification exam.
- Framework mappings are drafts and do not imply NICE, employer, government, or accreditor approval.
- Automated scenario and solver checks establish consistency and solvability, not teaching quality or occupational competence.
- No independent assessment form has been authored for this program.
- The professional course overlay is specified, but learner-facing course mode and artifact capture are not built.
clia-assessment-v0.1
Command Line Analyst (CLIA)
Intended claim
Performs introductory Linux-centric defensive analysis and network forensics in a controlled lab.
- Course contract
- not defined
- Assessment blueprint
- clia-assessment-v0.1
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-26
- Content review
- not defined
- Stale review targets
- 0
Outcomes and present coverage
Identify evidence provenance, acquisition limits, integrity considerations, time basis, and material gaps before analysis.
The corrected timeline package models provenance, but the discipline is not yet course-wide.Correlate host, authentication, application, and network evidence into a defensible incident timeline.
Correlation is genuinely exercised, but the objectives are answer flags: no CLIA scenario collects the evidence-citation or reasoning this outcome requires.Recover and interpret representative filesystem, packet, hidden-data, deleted-file, and program artifacts.
Recovery is well covered; interpretation is not assessed — no CLIA scenario collects the evidence-citation or reasoning this outcome requires.Triage observed activity, distinguish fact from inference, state confidence, and recommend proportionate response actions.
Containment, eradication, recovery, and escalation decisions need explicit scenarios.Produce reproducible case notes and a concise technical handoff with limitations and next steps.
Current objectives are primarily answer flags rather than authored case notes.In progressAuthored
The training library and draft outcome blueprint exist; learner-facing course mode is not yet frozen.
Not startedTechnical review
Automated validation is not a named human technical approval.
Not startedPedagogical review
A qualified instructional-design reviewer has not approved the course.
Not startedAssessment-design review
The outcome blueprint and any independent forms still require specialist review.
Not startedPiloted
No operational learner pilot or standard-setting evidence exists.
Not startedApproved L0
No completion certificate is issued.
Not startedApproved L1
No skills credential is issued.
Not startedIndependently accepted
No outside organization has yet documented reliance on the credential.
Not startedAccredited
CLI-Games does not claim accreditation.
Human review
Linux and security technical reviewOpen
Instructional-design and pedagogy reviewOpen
Assessment-design reviewOpen
Claim limits
- The current library is training, not a certification exam.
- Framework mappings are drafts and do not imply NICE, employer, government, or accreditor approval.
- Automated scenario and solver checks establish consistency and solvability, not teaching quality or occupational competence.
- No independent assessment form has been authored for this program.
Open review roles
Auditors wanted
Course auditors review the program itself. Attempt raters, when operational assessment eventually exists, will judge blinded candidate evidence against a frozen rubric.
Linux & security
Are the commands, systems, vulnerabilities, explanations, and remediations technically right?
See the opportunityInstructional design
Do the sequence, practice, feedback, accessibility, and transfer demands help people learn?
See the opportunityAssessment design
Do the tasks and rubric support the claim without rewarding memorization or answer-sheet access?
See the opportunityThe workbenches exist, but are not public archives.
Invited course auditors receive program-version-specific access to protected evidence and a findings ledger. Attempt raters receive separate, revocable grants and only their blinded assignments. Neither role receives general site administration.