feat(cli): browse historical security findings - #275
Conversation
…gs-history-discovery
…gs-history-discovery
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR adds first-class CLI support for browsing historical scan findings, including repository-scoped and scan-scoped finding lists, a dedicated finding-details view, and improved scan-history rendering that makes follow-up actions (pagination, details, matching, comparison) more discoverable.
Changes:
- Introduces
codex-security findings list/findings showflows (plusfindingsdefaulting tolist) and enhancesscans showto support a “latest completed scan” default. - Extends the TypeScript renderer to format saved-findings pages and full finding details (locations, evidence, remediation guidance, history links, pagination hints).
- Expands the bundled Python workbench to support
get-finding, richer scan-history scoping for moved/nested checkouts, and global findings indexing improvements (including secondary-location search).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| sdk/typescript/tests-ts/workbench-findings-index.test.ts | Adds regression coverage for global findings indexing (scoping, filtering, coverage-read behavior, tamper/noncanonical handling, detail vs preview completeness). |
| sdk/typescript/tests-ts/scan-history-renderer.test.ts | Adds renderer coverage for actionable findings/history output, pagination hints, triage precedence, and next-command suggestions. |
| sdk/typescript/tests-ts/runtime.test.ts | Adds coverage ensuring large get-finding responses are allowed while oversize non-detail workbench responses fail safely without leaking content. |
| sdk/typescript/tests-ts/cli.test.ts | Updates CLI manifest assertions for new findings commands and revised scans show signature. |
| sdk/typescript/tests-ts/cli-findings.test.ts | Adds CLI tests for repository scoping, paging/filter validation, scan selection, and “latest scan” behavior. |
| sdk/typescript/src/scan-history-renderer.ts | Implements new findings/finding render modes, checkout scoping helpers, and improved list/show guidance (pagination, matching, compare suggestions). |
| sdk/typescript/src/runtime.ts | Adds separate workbench stdout limits for list-style commands vs get-finding, with safer maxBuffer error redaction. |
| sdk/typescript/src/cli.ts | Adds findings list/show commands, defaults findings/scans to list, and supports scans show without an explicit scan ID (latest completed). |
| sdk/typescript/README.md | Documents the new scan-history and findings browsing commands and how to page/filter results. |
| sdk/typescript/_bundled_plugin/scripts/workbench_scan_history.py | Improves repository scoping to handle moved checkouts, nested boundaries, and reused paths more safely; includes currentTargetPath projection. |
| sdk/typescript/_bundled_plugin/scripts/workbench_native_indexes.py | Adds multi-target support, legacy-path support, and secondary-location searching for global findings queries. |
| sdk/typescript/_bundled_plugin/scripts/workbench_db.py | Adds get-finding, supports full-details finding serialization, and strips forged metadata fields from stored details while preserving authoritative triage. |
| sdk/typescript/_bundled_plugin/scripts/workbench_cli.py | Extends the workbench CLI surface with get-finding and multi-valued --target-id/--target-path for global findings. |
| README.md | Updates top-level docs to mention scans show latest behavior and the new findings browsing commands. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 223ecf3e75
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f0dc21af02
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4308466ae7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ed6ea80e68
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review the exact current head 5414e60. Verify registered checkout replacement never exposes previous-owner findings or counts, local legacy rows do not block verified linked worktrees, separately verified clones retain normalized-origin matching, and read-only history does not advertise unsupported comparisons. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5414e605c6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Security Review
Here are some automated security review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5414e605c6
Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.
ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub
This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
- You comment "@codex security review"
- A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Validate both sealed scans before matching
When the earlier scan's sealed manifest, findings, or coverage artifact is modified after completion, explicit scans match BEFORE AFTER and cached scans compare BEFORE AFTER validate only the later scan here and continue using the earlier scan's saved finding details. Fresh evidence beyond the native-index tampering report is this explicit comparison path: bulk matching calls read_coverage for every selected scan, but pair matching never checks the before scan, so a tampered sealed scan can still participate in a comparison; verify both seals before returning matching inputs or cached results.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L19-L20
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Security Review
Security: Preserve SSH account identity when matching clones
Required condition: two registered, current-owner checkouts use different SSH accounts on the same host and the same home-relative path, such as victim@host:repo.git and attacker@host:repo.git. Line 140 discards the account, so these distinct repositories normalize identically; scans match --all then includes the victim repository's saved finding evidence in the attacker's matching request. Fresh evidence beyond the prior unregistered-clone report is this collision between two fully registered, ownership-verified targets. Retain the SSH account or require a stronger operator-approved repository identity.
Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.
ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub
This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
- You comment "@codex security review"
- A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.
|
@codex review the exact current head b5770e0. Verify recycled device/inode identities cannot revive earlier ownership epochs in history, findings, counts, bulk matching, or explicit comparisons; origin matching requires verified owners on both sides; and sealed-artifact tampering remains fail-closed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Validate both sealed scans before comparing them
When the before scan's sealed manifest, findings, or coverage artifact is modified while the after scan remains intact, explicit scans match BEFORE AFTER and scans compare BEFORE AFTER validate only the after scan here. The before scan's database findings can therefore be sent for matching or used in a cached comparison, and save_scan_comparison() repeats the same after-only validation, so the operation succeeds instead of reporting the integrity failure. Validate both selected scans before backfilling findings, returning cached results, or saving matches.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L19-L20
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Summary
Verification
Release sequencing
This changes bundled plugin code. Merge it before the plugin-version bump in release #343 to include it in
0.1.10; if it lands afterward, the next release must increment both bundled plugin version declarations beyond0.1.17.