#7 Add OpenPAKT v0.1 example security scenarios

[meisterware-admin]

Summary

This pull request adds canonical OpenPAKT v0.1 example security scenario files at examples/.

The examples are intended to help implementers understand how portable security scenarios can be written for OpenPAKT-compatible tools. It demonstrates how adversarial inputs, expected behaviour, and validation criteria can be represented in a small, implementation-agnostic format.

---

Type of change

Select all that apply:

• Specification change
• Documentation update
• Example artifact update
• Governance / repository process update
• Non-functional cleanup

---

Specification classification (if applicable)

• Normative change (affects specification behaviour)
• Non-normative change (clarification, examples, wording)

---

Related issue

Link the related issue number.

Closes #7

Specification changes should normally be linked to a Proposal or Specification Change issue.

---

What changed

Summarize the main changes introduced by this PR.

• renamed examples/scenario-example.yaml to examples/scenario-prompt-injection-example.yaml
• added examples/scenario-data-exfiltration-example.yaml
• added examples/scenario-tool-abuse-example.yaml
• added new scenario file examples in required files in spec-validation.yml workflow
• added examples/README.md to describe the purpose of the example files
• included example scenarios for common agent security risks
• aligned example structure with the v0.1 security scenario format draft
• kept the example portable, concise, and CI-friendly

---

Impact

Describe the expected impact of this change.

This change improves implementation clarity by providing a concrete reference for scenario-based testing in OpenPAKT. It should make it easier for tool developers and contributors to understand how adversarial inputs and expected safe outcomes are represented.

The change is non-normative and does not alter specification behaviour. It mainly improves onboarding, implementation guidance, and consistency across future tooling and examples.

---

Compatibility

Choose one:

• Backward compatible
• Additive change
• Breaking change
• Not applicable

If "Breaking change", explain migration considerations.

---

Checklist

• Change is aligned with OpenPAKT scope
• Related documentation has been updated if needed
• Examples have been updated if needed
• Compatibility impact has been considered
• This PR does not introduce unnecessary scope expansion

---

Notes for reviewers

Reviewers should check that the example remains consistent with the current v0.1 draft scenario format and does not introduce new required fields or semantics.

The example should be treated as illustrative guidance only, not as a normative expansion of the specification.

[meisterware-admin]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 52928960fb

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[nerd114]

updated your PR description to fit the (other) repo changes @meisterware-admin