security-review-scored

Security review skill with scored output. Reads git diff autonomously, analyzes 5 security dimensions, emits Composite Score: 0.XX for loop integration. Formula: 1.0 - (critical×0.5 + high×0.2 + medium×0.05). Single-writer safe.

Contents

• Architecture — security-focused single-pass analysis
• Single-Pass Flow — adaptive diff loading + 5-dimension scan
• Scoring Formula — severity-weighted composite
• Output Schema — structured security report
• Integration Hooks — evolve-loop builder wiring

Architecture

Security specialist review. Reads the diff once, evaluates 5 security dimensions, produces a severity-weighted composite score that the Builder convergence loop can parse.

Input: git diff (changed files)
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  LOAD CONTEXT (once)    │  Adaptive HEAD / HEAD~1 detection
│  git diff HEAD --stat   │
└─────────┬───────────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  5-DIMENSION SCAN       │
│  1. Injection vectors   │  SQL, shell, command, template injection
│  2. Auth/authz gaps     │  Missing auth checks, privilege escalation
│  3. Sensitive exposure  │  Hardcoded secrets, credentials, PII logging
│  4. Crypto misuse       │  Weak algorithms, static IVs, predictable seeds
│  5. Input validation    │  Missing bounds, unsanitized input reaching sinks
└─────────┬───────────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  SEVERITY SCORING       │  CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW counts
│  Composite formula:     │  1.0 - (crit×0.5 + high×0.2 + med×0.05)
│  Capped at 0.0 floor    │
└─────────────────────────┘

Single-Pass Flow

Step 1: LOAD (once)

# Adaptive context detection — same as code-review-simplify
DIFF_STAT=$(git diff HEAD --stat 2>/dev/null || echo "")
if [ -n "$DIFF_STAT" ]; then
  REF="HEAD"    # pre-commit: review uncommitted Builder changes
else
  REF="HEAD~1"  # standalone: review last committed change
fi
DIFF=$(git diff "$REF" --stat)
CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff "$REF" --name-only)
DIFF_FULL=$(git diff "$REF")

Step 2: SCAN (5 dimensions)

Analyze each changed file for security issues across all 5 dimensions:

Dimension	Patterns to Check	Severity Guide
Injection	User input flowing to shell commands, SQL queries, template engines, eval-equivalent calls	CRITICAL if direct; HIGH if indirect
Auth/Authz	New endpoints or functions without authentication guards; privilege checks that can be bypassed; hardcoded role grants	CRITICAL if unauthenticated access to sensitive data; HIGH if partial bypass
Sensitive Exposure	Hardcoded passwords, API keys, tokens, private keys; logging of sensitive fields (passwords, tokens, PII); error messages leaking stack traces or internal paths	CRITICAL if secret committed; HIGH if PII logged
Crypto Misuse	Weak hash algorithms (MD5, SHA1 for passwords); static IVs or nonces; insecure random for security-sensitive values (Math.random, random.random); deprecated cipher modes (ECB)	HIGH if password hashing; MEDIUM if non-password crypto
Input Validation	Missing length/type/range checks on external input before reaching database, filesystem, or network sinks; path traversal risks (../); integer overflow potential	HIGH if reaching a sink; MEDIUM if internal only

Step 3: SCORE

Count findings by severity and compute composite:

critical = count of CRITICAL findings
high     = count of HIGH findings
medium   = count of MEDIUM findings
penalty  = critical×0.5 + high×0.2 + medium×0.05
composite = max(0.0, 1.0 - penalty)

Verdict mapping:

Composite	Verdict	Builder action
≥ 0.85	PASS	Converged — proceed to build-report
0.6–0.84	WARN	Ship with noted findings; address in next cycle
< 0.6	FAIL	Block — fix required before shipping

Scoring Formula

Composite Score: 1.0 - (critical×0.5 + high×0.2 + medium×0.05)

Examples:

• 0 findings → 1.0 - 0 = 1.00 (PASS)
• 1 HIGH → 1.0 - 0.2 = 0.80 (WARN)
• 1 CRITICAL → 1.0 - 0.5 = 0.50 (FAIL)
• 2 MEDIUM → 1.0 - 0.10 = 0.90 (PASS)
• 1 HIGH + 2 MEDIUM → 1.0 - (0.2+0.10) = 0.70 (WARN)

Output Schema

## Security Review

### Composite Score: 0.XX
(formula: 1.0 - (critical×0.5 + high×0.2 + medium×0.05))

### Verdict: PASS | WARN | FAIL

### Findings
| Severity | Dimension | File:Line | Description |
|----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
| CRITICAL | injection | ... | ... |
| HIGH | auth | ... | ... |
| MEDIUM | crypto | ... | ... |

### Summary
CRITICAL: N  HIGH: N  MEDIUM: N  LOW: N

Builder self-review section format (in build-report.md):

security-review-scored=0.XX

Integration Hooks

Builder Self-Review Loop

Invoke after implementation changes, before writing build-report.md:

Builder → Skill("security-review-scored") → parse "Composite Score: X.XX"
        → if score < threshold (0.75 default): note findings in build-report
        → include "security-review-scored=X.XX" in ## Self-Review section

Env-var configuration:

# reviewSkills: code-review-simplify,security-review-scored
# selfReview: 1

Standalone Invocation

/evo:security-review-scored [--tier lightweight|standard|full]