trailmark-review-gate
- 作者仓库星标 0
- 作者更新于 2026年8月25日 07:09
- 作者仓库 skills
Trailmark Review Gate
Apply deterministic security gate rules to Trailmark structural diff evidence. This skill does not replace line-level review. It produces a compact structural packet reviewers can cite while they inspect the code.
When to Use
- Reviewing a branch, pull request, release diff, or fix commit
- Checking whether a change expands attack surface
- Looking for removed validation or authorization on reachable paths
- Comparing before/after taint, privilege-boundary, blast-radius, or complexity signals
- Producing graph evidence for a differential review
When NOT to Use
- Single-snapshot analysis. Use
trailmarkortrailmark-structural. - Text-diff review only. Use
differential-review. - Full vulnerability discovery. Use an audit or bug-finding workflow.
- One static finding. Use
trailmark-finding-triage. - Tooling is unavailable and the user wants manual review only.
Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It Is Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "The line diff is small, so no graph gate is needed" | Small changes can create new call paths | Compare before/after graphs |
| "Graph gate passed, so the PR is secure" | The gate only checks structural regressions | Still perform line-level review |
| "Trailmark failed, so pass the gate" | Tool failure is unknown risk, not success | Emit UNKNOWN |
| "Tests pass, so removed validation is fine" | Tests may miss affected entrypoint paths | Review the removed path manually |
| "Only new code matters" | Removed auth, validation, and callers can be higher risk than additions | Review removals and path changes |
Workflow
Review Gate Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Resolve before/after inputs
- [ ] Step 2: Build graph-evolution evidence
- [ ] Step 3: Normalize structural changes
- [ ] Step 4: Apply gate rules
- [ ] Step 5: Emit review packet and actions
Step 1: Resolve Inputs
Accept two refs, a branch name, a commit range, or before/after directories.
Do not check out branches unnecessarily. Prefer git diff, git show, and
git worktrees, following the graph-evolution snapshot workflow.
Step 2: Build Graph Evidence
Run graph-evolution or equivalent Trailmark before/after graph analysis.
Both snapshots must run engine.preanalysis() so taint, privilege-boundary,
blast-radius, complexity, and entrypoint signals are available.
Record Trailmark version and any feature probes. If graph construction fails,
emit UNKNOWN.
Step 3: Normalize Changes
Normalize evidence into:
- added, removed, and modified nodes
- added and removed edges
- entrypoint set changes
- taint membership changes
- privilege-boundary membership changes
- blast-radius changes
- complexity changes
- newly reachable sensitive sinks
- unresolved, proxy, or dynamic edge changes
Step 4: Apply Gate Rules
Apply the rules in references/gate-rules.md. Gate verdicts are:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
FAIL |
A high-risk structural regression needs review before acceptance |
WARN |
A meaningful graph change needs reviewer attention |
PASS |
No configured structural gate fired |
UNKNOWN |
Trailmark failed or evidence is too incomplete |
Step 5: Emit Packet
Write the packet using
references/output-format.md, then hand it to
the branch reviewer. Use
references/review-integration.md when
combining this packet with differential-review or another PR review process.
Requirements
- Never mutate the user's working branch while comparing refs.
- Never report
PASSwhen Trailmark failed. - Separate graph evidence from manual security judgment.
- Include exact changed nodes or paths for every
FAILandWARN. - Include limitations when parser, proxy, unresolved-call, or dynamic-dispatch uncertainty affects the verdict.
- 流狐分类
- AI 智能
- 作者声明 Agent
- 未找到明确声明;不据此推断已兼容或已测试
- 静态检查
- 88 / 100 · 启发式扫描,不代表运行安全
- 作者 / 版本 / 许可
- @trailofbits · 未声明 license
- 流狐 Token 估算
- 低消耗
- 流狐接入估算
- 即装即用
- 是否需要外部 API Key
- 未发现要求
- 检测到的系统要求
- 未声明
- 底层运行要求
- 未声明
- 检测到的文件与系统行为
-
- 只读
- 允许写入 / 修改
- 检测到的网络行为
- 仅限本地
- 安装命令数
- 无(仅作为资料)
档案由构建时根据 SKILL.md 与安装命令自动衍生,可能与作者实际意图存在差异。
需要注意: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
作者没有在当前 SKILL.md 中定义固定输出样例。 Workflow
Accept two refs, a branch name, a commit range, or before/after directories. Do not check out branches unnecessarily. Prefer git diff, git show, and git worktrees, following the graph-evolution snapshot workflow.
Run graph-evolution or equivalent Trailmark before/after graph analysis. Both snapshots must run engine.preanalysis() so taint, privilege-boundary, blast-radius, complexity, and entrypoint signals are available.
Normalize evidence into: added, removed, and modified nodes added and removed edges
Apply the rules in references/gate-rules.md. Gate verdicts are: Verdict · Meaning
Write the packet using references/output-format.md, then hand it to the branch reviewer. Use
# Trailmark Review Gate
Apply deterministic security gate rules to Trailmark structural diff evidence.
This skill does not replace line-level review. It produces a compact structural
packet reviewers can cite while they inspect the code.
## When to Use
- Reviewing a branch, pull request, release diff, or fix commit
- Checking whether a change expands attack surface
- Looking for removed validation or authorization on reachable paths
- Comparing before/after taint, privilege-boundary, blast-radius, or
complexity signals
- Producing graph evidence for a differential review
## When NOT to Use
- Single-snapshot analysis. Use `trailmark` or `trailmark-structural`.
- Text-diff review only. Use `differential-review`.
- Full vulnerability discovery. Use an audit or bug-finding workflow.
- One static finding. Use `trailmark-finding-triage`.
- Tooling is unavailable and the user wants manual review only.
## Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It Is Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "The line diff is small, so no graph gate is needed" | Small changes can create new call paths | Compare before/after graphs |
| "Graph gate passed, so the PR is secure" | The gate only checks structural regressions | Still perform line-level review |
| "Trailmark failed, so pass the gate" | Tool failure is unknown risk, not success | Emit `UNKNOWN` |
| "Tests pass, so removed validation is fine" | Tests may miss affected entrypoint paths | Review the removed path manually |
| "Only new code matters" | Removed auth, validation, and callers can be higher risk than additions | Review removals and path changes |
## Workflow
```
Review Gate Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Resolve before/after inputs
- [ ] Step 2: Build graph-evolution evidence
… 作者原文负责流程事实;流狐只索引当前章节、要点、文件与命令。
章节 -> When to Use → When NOT to Use → Rationalizations to Reject → Workflow → Step 1: Resolve Inputs → Step 2: Build Graph Evidence
要点 -> Apply deterministic security gate rules to Trailmark structural diff evidence. · - Single-snapshot analysis. · Accept two refs, a branch name, a commit range, or before/after directories. · Run graph-evolution or equivalent Trailmark before/after graph analysis. · Record Trailmark version and any feature probes. · Apply the rules in [references/gate-rules.md](references/gate-rules.md). · Write the packet using [references/output-format.md](references/output-format.md), then hand it to the branch reviewer. · - Never mutate the user's working branch while comparing refs.
文件/命令 -> trailmark · trailmark-structural · differential-review · trailmark-finding-triage · UNKNOWN · git diff · git show · graph-evolution
内容 SHA-256 -> 9de62276a97c
方法与流程
适用与边界
原文中的明确线索
trailmark、trailmark-structural、differential-review、trailmark-finding-triage、UNKNOWN、git diff、git show、graph-evolution