docs: add security audit report template#39
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new file ChangesSecurity Audit Report Template
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD (3)
105-111: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueAdd brief guidance on severity distribution table population.
The Severity Distribution table is useful for tracking but lacks clarity on whether it should be manually maintained or calculated from the Findings Summary table. Consider adding a note like: "(Populate manually by counting findings of each severity, or calculate automatically from the Findings Summary table.)"
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD` around lines 105 - 111, The Severity Distribution table lacks clarity on how it should be populated. Below the table with the severity levels (Critical, High, Medium, Low, Informational) and their count placeholders, add an explanatory note in italics that clarifies whether the counts should be manually maintained by counting findings from the Findings Summary table or if they can be calculated automatically. This guidance will help users understand the expected workflow for keeping the severity distribution accurate.
174-177: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueClarify relationship between finding status and retest status terminology.
The template uses different status vocabularies across sections:
- Findings Summary (line 100):
Open / Fixed / Accepted / Mitigated(finding disposition)- Retest Summary (line 176):
Passed / Failed / Partially Fixed(verification outcome)- Remediation Plan (line 167):
Open / In Progress / Complete(task progress)These track different concepts, which is correct, but the field labels could be more explicit to avoid confusion. Consider renaming the Retest Summary column from "Retest Status" to "Retest Verification Status" or adding a brief legend at the top of section 7 clarifying that "Retest Status" describes verification of the fix, not the overall finding status.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD` around lines 174 - 177, The Retest Summary section uses the column header "Retest Status" which creates ambiguity with other status vocabularies used elsewhere in the template (Findings Summary uses finding disposition terms like Open/Fixed/Accepted/Mitigated, and Remediation Plan uses task progress terms). To clarify this distinction, either rename the "Retest Status" column header in the Retest Summary table to "Retest Verification Status" to be more explicit about what it measures, or add a brief legend at the top of section 7 that explicitly states "Retest Status describes the verification outcome of whether a fix has been successfully applied, separate from the overall finding status." This will prevent confusion about what each status vocabulary represents.
137-139: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueOptionally expand evidence format guidance for diverse evidence types.
The Evidence block uses a code format, which is appropriate for code snippets and logs. For completeness in a crypto/DeFi context, consider adding a note that evidence can also include transaction hashes, external links, tool outputs, or other non-code artifacts, e.g.:
[Relevant code path, command output, request, response, transaction, log excerpt, or external link]This is optional and the template will work fine as-is; the current format is clear enough for most auditors.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD` around lines 137 - 139, Update the Evidence block placeholder text in the AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD file to include guidance on additional evidence types beyond code and logs. Expand the current placeholder (which only mentions code path, command output, request, response, transaction, and log excerpt) to explicitly note that evidence can also include transaction hashes, external links, tool outputs, or other non-code artifacts relevant to crypto/DeFi audits. This provides clearer guidance to auditors on acceptable evidence formats without requiring code changes to the template structure.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD`:
- Around line 105-111: The Severity Distribution table lacks clarity on how it
should be populated. Below the table with the severity levels (Critical, High,
Medium, Low, Informational) and their count placeholders, add an explanatory
note in italics that clarifies whether the counts should be manually maintained
by counting findings from the Findings Summary table or if they can be
calculated automatically. This guidance will help users understand the expected
workflow for keeping the severity distribution accurate.
- Around line 174-177: The Retest Summary section uses the column header "Retest
Status" which creates ambiguity with other status vocabularies used elsewhere in
the template (Findings Summary uses finding disposition terms like
Open/Fixed/Accepted/Mitigated, and Remediation Plan uses task progress terms).
To clarify this distinction, either rename the "Retest Status" column header in
the Retest Summary table to "Retest Verification Status" to be more explicit
about what it measures, or add a brief legend at the top of section 7 that
explicitly states "Retest Status describes the verification outcome of whether a
fix has been successfully applied, separate from the overall finding status."
This will prevent confusion about what each status vocabulary represents.
- Around line 137-139: Update the Evidence block placeholder text in the
AUDIT_REPORT_TEMPLATE.MD file to include guidance on additional evidence types
beyond code and logs. Expand the current placeholder (which only mentions code
path, command output, request, response, transaction, and log excerpt) to
explicitly note that evidence can also include transaction hashes, external
links, tool outputs, or other non-code artifacts relevant to crypto/DeFi audits.
This provides clearer guidance to auditors on acceptable evidence formats
without requiring code changes to the template structure.
2 participants
Changes
Related Issue
Closes #3
Summary by CodeRabbit