Hey, thanks for picking this up. Really nice PR — code is clean, tests are solid, and you got the finding shape right (the EU AI Act Article 14 mapping is exactly what I wanted).

Two things I want to think through with you before I merge. Neither is a dealbreaker, just curious about your thinking:

1. The substring check on terms like "delete" and "exec" will fire on things like "do not delete X" or comments saying "// never exec this." Word boundaries or a small regex would tighten it a lot. What's your take?

2. The approval check looks at all five config files together. So if SOUL.md mentions "oversight" once, destructive findings in TOOLS.md don't fire even if the tools themselves have no approval near them. Was that on purpose? I'd lean toward checking inside a window around each destructive line, but want to know what you were going for.

If either of those feels like more work than you signed up for, just say and I'll handle it on this branch and credit you on the merge.

Unrelated — the PR body mentions an AANA-gated workflow. I run an agent-security tool (the one you just contributed to!) and the idea of using AI to scout issues and submit PRs is genuinely smart. Curious how you're running it. Want to do a 20-min Zoom this week or next? I think there might be a real way for us to work together.

Thanks again. The OpenClaw scanner is useful and I want it merged once we sort those two.

Hey — just bumping in case this got buried. No rush, just want to keep the door open. Either of those questions still feel right to you, or want me to take it over and credit you on the merge?

Thanks for the bump, and sorry this sat for a few days.

Your two points still feel right to me. The current implementation was intentionally a narrow first slice, but I agree it is too broad in both places:

1. The destructive term detection should be tightened with word-boundary style matching so it does not fire on incidental substrings or obvious negated/commentary examples.
2. The approval/oversight check should be local to the destructive capability, probably using a small window around the matched line, rather than treating any approval language anywhere across the five OpenClaw files as sufficient.

I am happy for you to take it over on this branch and credit me on the merge if that is the fastest path. If you would rather I do the follow-up, I can make those changes too.

And yes, I would be interested in a 20-min Zoom. AANA is being used as a verifier/correction gate around issue selection, claim boundaries, and publish readiness rather than as a security certification layer. I would be glad to walk you through how I am running it and see whether there is a useful collaboration path here.