Claims, outcomes, versions, review state, approved summaries, limitations, and change history.
Learning assurance
Show the evidence. Name the limits.
This is the public record of what CLI-Games training is intended to teach, what has actually been reviewed, and which credential claims have not been earned yet.
Current truth
The training library is live. Course mode, completion certificates, skills credentials, independent recognition, and accreditation are not.
How status works
A review ledger, not a marketing adjective
A stage moves only when its evidence exists. Automated validation can support a human review, but it cannot impersonate one. Reviewer names appear publicly only with consent; private findings stay private until an approved summary is published.
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
Each record is tied to a versioned assessment blueprint and an explicit claim boundary.
clip-assessment-v0.1
Command Line Practitioner (CLIP)
Intended claim
Performs foundational command-line work in a controlled Linux security lab.
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-24
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-assessment-v0.1
Command Line Operator (CLIO)
Intended claim
Performs scoped introductory offensive-security testing in a controlled lab.
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-24
Outcomes and present coverage
Translate an authorization statement into test scope, stop conditions, and a minimally destructive plan.
Rules of engagement and scope decisions are not yet explicitly taught 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.
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.
clia-assessment-v0.1
Command Line Incident Analyst (CLIA)
Intended claim
Performs introductory Linux and network incident analysis in a controlled lab.
- Completion certificate
- not shipped
- Skills credential
- not shipped
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-24
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.
Recover and interpret representative filesystem, packet, hidden-data, deleted-file, and program artifacts.
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.
Independent eyes
Three disciplines, three different questions
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.