mirror of
https://github.com/norandom/OpenUltraSAST.git
synced 2026-10-16 11:49:28 +00:00
docs: frame the proof as prioritization evidence for busy devs [skip ci]
Revise the developer guide for engineers with full backlogs and no spare schedule: a vague warning dies in the backlog, so the value of the demonstrated proof is the prioritization conversation -- reproducible evidence (input, behavior, the one-line fix difference) a dev takes to a product owner or the business to win capacity, dropped into the ticket system as a location, repair direction, and reproduction. mcp-shift-left-agent brief: the agent's return should be ticket-ready evidence. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 4.8
parent
c49f334651
commit
dfc0956086
@@ -14,12 +14,30 @@ it only advises; it never blocks until you turn blocking on.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this matters now
|
||||
|
||||
You and your coding agents ship quickly. Security is not most engineers' day job,
|
||||
and an agent writing code does not pause to audit itself. A pre-push check is the
|
||||
place to catch a security regression that you, or an agent acting for you,
|
||||
introduced, before it reaches the remote. In an agent-driven workflow it is the
|
||||
oversight step: the gate that reviews what the agent wrote, every push, without
|
||||
you having to become the security reviewer.
|
||||
Your backlog is full and your schedule is not yours. Security findings compete
|
||||
with feature tickets, and a vague "possible vulnerability" loses that fight every
|
||||
time: no one gets capacity to chase a maybe. Meanwhile you and your coding agents
|
||||
ship quickly, and an agent writing code does not pause to audit itself. A
|
||||
pre-push check is the place to catch a regression that you, or an agent acting
|
||||
for you, introduced, before it reaches the remote. In an agent-driven workflow it
|
||||
is the oversight step: the gate that reviews what the agent wrote, every push,
|
||||
without you having to become the security reviewer.
|
||||
|
||||
## From a finding to capacity
|
||||
|
||||
The point of the proof is the prioritization conversation, not just your terminal.
|
||||
|
||||
A theoretical warning dies in the backlog. A demonstrated proof does not: it is a
|
||||
reproducible check that triggers the problem on the current code and stops once
|
||||
the code is fixed. That is the thing you take to a product owner or to the
|
||||
business when you need capacity. It turns "security thinks this might be a
|
||||
problem" into "here is the exact input, the exact behavior, and the one-line
|
||||
difference that stops it," which is something a product owner can weigh against a
|
||||
feature with real information instead of fear.
|
||||
|
||||
So the output is built to drop into your ticket system as evidence: a location, a
|
||||
concrete repair direction, and, where the app is runnable, the reproduction
|
||||
itself. That is what gets a fix scheduled rather than deferred.
|
||||
|
||||
## What you do
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user