There's a few pages on this site with commentary along the following lines (this particular example adapted from Two-space notchers not fully connected):

White to play and kill  

is a tesuji, followed by the atari at which destroys an eye in sente, and then destroys another eye.

Now of course is not sente in the context of a real game. As soon as appears on the board, black should know that the group is dead and should tenuki: both and are wasted ko threats.

But in the context of understanding the solution of a life and death problem, you might consider to be a kind of "local sente": if white were to play a as well, then the black stones are obviously dead, while in the diagram keeps the group unsettled and forces white to find the killing move at .

An anonymous user has been editing these comments to say things like:

is a tesuji, followed by the atari at which destroys an eye in gote, and then destroys another eye.

This is technically correct: isn't sente, so of course it's gote. But it's confusing: why would you say "gote ... and then ..." I imagine a beginner trying to make sense of this: why did black reply to the gote move?

Personally I'm OK using "sente" with this local meaning. But if people want to remove the word sente, I'd be much more comfortable rewriting it to completely avoid the sente/gote issue:

is a tesuji, followed by the atari at which destroys an eye, and if black plays then destroys another eye.

To see how much confusion there is amongst beginners, spend a bit of time at https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/ :-)

You're correct, my use of the word "keep" is not accurate.

I won't reply to the other points right away: I'll wait a few days and see if anyone else has an opinion. Thanks for the discussion, and for your contributions to the library.