trailmark-review-gate
Runs a Trailmark structural review gate over a branch, pull request, fix commit, release diff, or git ref range to detect new entrypoints, new tainted paths, removed validation or authorization calls, privilege-boundary drift, blast-radius growth, complexity growth, and newly reachable sensitive sin
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 5
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 5934cac7e547b51f… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
SKILL.md
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.
Files
5- SKILL.md
fad45861ec4.3 KB - agents/openai.yaml
20b033a819246 B - references/gate-rules.md
dff93b56062.2 KB - references/output-format.md
2d98fcb94c1.0 KB - references/review-integration.md
13d13913021.4 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from trailofbits/skills8
Builds and runs code under AddressSanitizer to catch buffer overflows, use-after-free, and other memory errors during fuzzing or tests. Covers -fsanitize=address builds, ASAN_OPTIONS, reading the crash report, LeakSanitizer, and the overhead and platform trade-offs. Use when fuzzing C/C++ or Rust th
Sets up and runs AFL++ for multi-core fuzzing of C/C++ projects built with afl-clang-fast or afl-gcc-fast. Covers instrumentation modes, parallel main and secondary campaigns, persistent mode, corpus minimization, and crash triage. Use when scaling fuzzing across cores, fuzzing a mature C/C++ codeba
Audits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI Inference. Detects attack vectors where attacker-controlled input reaches AI agents running in CI/CD pipelines, including env var intermediary p
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal).
Sets up and runs Atheris, the coverage-guided Python fuzzer built on libFuzzer. Covers TestOneInput harnesses, FuzzedDataProvider, instrumenting both pure Python and native C extensions, and running under AddressSanitizer. Use when fuzzing a Python package, hunting memory corruption in a Python C ex
Augments Trailmark code graphs with external audit findings from SARIF static analysis results, weAudit annotation files, and version-gated Trailmark 0.4.x binary-analysis graph exports. Maps findings to graph nodes by file and line overlap, creates severity-based subgraphs, and enables cross-refere
Understand a codebase before looking for bugs in it - what each function assumes, what it guarantees, and what it depends on elsewhere. Use when starting an audit, threat model, or architecture review on unfamiliar code, and before any vulnerability-hunting pass.
Prepares codebases for security review using Trail of Bits' checklist. Helps set review goals, runs static analysis tools, increases test coverage, removes dead code, ensures accessibility, and generates documentation (flowcharts, user stories, inline comments). Use when preparing your own codebase