Rodin
d33a45329c
PR Ready Gate / clear-labels (pull_request) Successful in 1s
CI / test (pull_request) Successful in 12s
CI / review (/anthropic/v1, anthropic--claude-4.6-sonnet, sonnet, anthropic, SONNET_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 37s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, gpt, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 1m20s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, security, openai, SECURITY_REVIEW.md, SECURITY_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 1m21s
Implement role-based review personas that provide specialized review focus: - Security: vulnerabilities, auth, secrets, injection attacks - Architect: design patterns, code organization, API contracts - Docs: documentation quality, API clarity, error messages Changes: - Add persona loading from JSON files and embedded built-ins - Add --persona and --persona-file CLI flags (mutually exclusive) - Add BuildPersonaSystemPrompt for persona-specific prompts - Add FormatMarkdownWithDisplay for persona display names - Update action.yml with persona and persona-file inputs - Add comprehensive tests for all new functionality - Document personas in README with examples The persona system replaces the generic 'You are an expert code reviewer' prompt with domain-specific identity, focus areas, ignore list, and severity calibration. This reduces redundancy between multiple reviewers and catches domain-specific issues that generic reviewers miss. Closes #51
27 lines
1.4 KiB
JSON
27 lines
1.4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"name": "security",
|
|
"display_name": "Security Specialist",
|
|
"identity": "You are a security specialist reviewing code for vulnerabilities.\n\nYour expertise:\n- OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities\n- Injection attacks (SQL, command, path traversal, template)\n- Authentication and authorization patterns\n- Secrets management and exposure risks\n- Race conditions with security implications\n- Event sourcing attack vectors (replay attacks, event injection)",
|
|
"focus": [
|
|
"Injection attacks (SQL, command, path traversal, template injection)",
|
|
"Authentication and authorization gaps or bypasses",
|
|
"Secrets exposure (hardcoded credentials, tokens in logs, config leaks)",
|
|
"Input validation failures (unsanitized input, unsafe deserialization)",
|
|
"Race conditions that could be exploited",
|
|
"Cryptographic weaknesses (weak algorithms, improper key handling)",
|
|
"Information disclosure through error messages or logs"
|
|
],
|
|
"ignore": [
|
|
"Code style and naming conventions",
|
|
"Performance optimizations (unless security-related)",
|
|
"Documentation quality",
|
|
"General code quality or readability",
|
|
"Test coverage"
|
|
],
|
|
"severity": {
|
|
"major": "Exploitable vulnerabilities: auth bypass, injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, RCE",
|
|
"minor": "Defense-in-depth issues: missing rate limiting, verbose errors, weak input validation",
|
|
"nit": "Theoretical risks with low exploitability or impact"
|
|
}
|
|
}
|