trailmark-review-gate

Name: trailmark-review-gate
Author: trailofbits/skills

$npx mdskill add trailofbits/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.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/trailmark-review-gateView on GitHub ↗

---
name: trailmark-review-gate
description: "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 sinks. Use when reviewing a PR, branch, remediation commit, or release diff where graph-level security regressions should be checked before merge."
allowed-tools:
  - Bash
  - Read
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Write
---

# 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
- [ ] 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](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](references/output-format.md), then hand it to
the branch reviewer. Use
[references/review-integration.md](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 `PASS` when Trailmark failed.
- Separate graph evidence from manual security judgment.
- Include exact changed nodes or paths for every `FAIL` and `WARN`.
- Include limitations when parser, proxy, unresolved-call, or dynamic-dispatch
  uncertainty affects the verdict.

More from trailofbits/skills

Skill	Description
address-sanitizer	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 that has unsafe blocks or FFI, when debugging a memory corruption crash, or when reading an ASan stack trace.
adjudicate-regression	Use when deciding whether source and live reproduction evidence establish a new regression or an exclusion.
aflpp	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++ codebase, reading the afl-fuzz status screen, or moving on after libFuzzer has plateaued.
agentic-actions-auditor	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 patterns, direct expression injection, dangerous sandbox configurations, and wildcard user allowlists. Use when reviewing workflow files that invoke AI coding agents, auditing CI/CD pipeline security for prompt injection risks, or evaluating agentic action configurations.
algorand-vulnerability-scanner	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).
atheris	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 extension, or choosing between Atheris and Hypothesis for a Python target.
audit-augmentation	>
audit-context-building	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.
audit-prep-assistant	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 to be audited by someone else, getting a repository review-ready before an external security review, deciding what to fix before auditors start, or asking what assessors need from a project. For understanding unfamiliar code you are about to audit, use audit-context-building instead.
burpsuite-project-parser	Searches and explores Burp Suite project files (.burp) from the command line. Use when searching response headers or bodies with regex patterns, extracting security audit findings, dumping proxy history or site map data, or analyzing HTTP traffic captured in a Burp project.