diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
index f0df408..a52ee55 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Every rule's `meta:` block must include:
 | `remediation` | string | free text | Plain-language guidance for what to do about the match. Rule-specific – consumers surface this to the developer or agent whose code triggered the rule. |
 | `severity` | string | `critical`, `high`, `medium`, `low` | Match severity to real-world impact, not detection confidence. See [README § API stability](README.md#api-stability). |
 | `category` | string | any value in `CATEGORIES` | Must be an existing category (see `src/scanner/types.ts`). Do not add one inline – see *Category-addition policy* below. |
-| `action` | string | `block`, `revert`, `warn` | Rule author's recommendation to the consumer. Not a command – consumers decide what to actually do. |
+| `action` | string | `block`, `remediate`, `warn` | Rule author's recommendation to the consumer. Not a command – consumers decide what to actually do. |
 | `scan_context` | string | `command`, `input`, `output` | What kind of content this rule targets. `command` = shell commands, `input` = content being read, `output` = code being written. Not all consumers use this — batch scanners ignore it — but hook-based consumers filter by it. |
 
 ### Name the rule clearly
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 64c08c5..adcca57 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ I get that it's tempting to slip in extra checks here ("we already have a scanne
 **Anti-goals – things the Warlock must never become:**
 
 1. **A general-purpose linter or code-quality tool.** Rules need to catch genuine security risks – prompt injection, exfiltration, destructive operations, poisoned context, that kind of thing. Best-practice checks ("did you enable feature X?") belong in the wizard or a dedicated linter, not here.
-2. **A policy or enforcement engine that takes action.** the Warlock detects, consumers decide. Each rule's `action` field is a *recommendation* (`block`, `revert`, `warn`), not a command. The consumer implements the actual response.
+2. **A policy or enforcement engine that takes action.** the Warlock detects, consumers decide. Each rule's `action` field is a *recommendation* (`block`, `remediate`, `warn`), not a command. The consumer implements the actual response.
 3. **An orchestration engine that dictates when or where to scan.** the Warlock is engine-only. It knows nothing about phases, tools, agents, or workflows. Consumers wire up the timing themselves.
 4. **A wizard-specific tool.** the Warlock has to serve context-mill and future consumers equally. No wizard-only assumptions (tool names, phase names, wizard-specific categories) belong in the Warlock itself.
 
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ Every rule has a `scan_context` field (`command`, `input`, or `output`) indicati
 
 ### `action` field as a recommendation, not a command
 
-Every rule's metadata includes an `action` (`block`, `revert`, or `warn`). This is the rule author's *opinion* about how serious the finding is and what the consumer should do – not a directive.
+Every rule's metadata includes an `action` (`block`, `remediate`, or `warn`). This is the rule author's *opinion* about how serious the finding is and what the consumer should do – not a directive.
 
 - **Why:** Rule authors know the detection context best, consumers know the execution context best. The rule says "this looks like attempted exfiltration, you probably want to block it." The consumer decides whether to actually block, log, notify, escalate, or do something else entirely.