fix(ci): run ruff format, and record run 5 at 90% pair-correct

CI was red on `ruff format --check`: 23 files. I ran `ruff check` after every
change this session and never once ran `ruff format --check`, though CI runs
both. Lint passing is not formatting passing, and I treated one as evidence for
the other for the whole session.

Formatting applied. The full CI sequence now reproduces locally: format, lint,
mypy over 94 files, 735 tests, three gates byte-identical, compileall, and the
semantic job's 16 marked tests.

Also records run 5 of the pipeline measurement, which the vampi fix lifted as
predicted:

                       hunter (K=5)   pipeline (K=1)
  pair-correct              76.7%          90.0%
  leak                      12.3%           6.7%
  detection                    --          96.7%
  cost                     ~$0.69        $0.0068

27 of 30 pairs. Five runs, each step from a measurement contradicting an
assumption: 73.3 (no pipeline path) -> 73.3 (routing fixed, IDENTICAL, which
exposed the discarded verdict) -> 80.0 (residual question matched to its
arbiter) -> 86.7 (aiohttp settings) -> 90.0 (dominance question no longer
contradicting its own evidence).

One miss left: dsvpwa-dsvpwa-main, whose setting is an argparse --ssl default
rather than a security-setting call. Out of reach before the settings work and
still is; contorting the arbiter around one pair would be worse than the miss.

The caveat is recorded beside the number: 30 pairs of one slice, and the slice
iterated against all session. The +16% overfitting gap against vfc-js is why
contributor-scan Req 8.1/8.2 exist.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
This commit is contained in:
Marius Ciepluch
2026-09-08 19:46:58 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 14ca0a96ce
commit fe45081b43
24 changed files with 397 additions and 213 deletions
+1 -3
View File
@@ -234,9 +234,7 @@ def run_round(
regressed,
small,
)
outcome = _outcome(
round_index, accepted=accepted, reason=reason, edits=edits, before=before, after=after, degradations=refusals
)
outcome = _outcome(round_index, accepted=accepted, reason=reason, edits=edits, before=before, after=after, degradations=refusals)
return RoundOutcome(
**{
**outcome.__dict__,
+14 -9
View File
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ class FamilyGaps(TypedDict):
pairs: int
reasons: dict[str, int]
# Ascending, matching `ladder.Rung`. A pair is split when the vulnerable side outranks its fix.
_ORDER = {"none": 0, "": 0, "suspicion": 0, "model_corroborated": 1, "model_entailed": 2, "execution_confirmed": 3}
@@ -82,15 +83,18 @@ class CalibrationReport:
def to_markdown(self) -> str:
"""Per-slice rows first; there is no headline here that is not backed by them (Req 9.3, 11.1)."""
lines = ["## Model calibration", "", "Coverage is a pair the model *splits*: a strictly higher rung on",
"the vulnerable side than on its fix. Everything else is a named gap.", "",
"| slice | pairs | covered | gaps | coverage |", "|---|---|---|---|---|"]
lines = [
"## Model calibration",
"",
"Coverage is a pair the model *splits*: a strictly higher rung on",
"the vulnerable side than on its fix. Everything else is a named gap.",
"",
"| slice | pairs | covered | gaps | coverage |",
"|---|---|---|---|---|",
]
for slice_name, block in sorted(self.per_slice.items()):
pairs = block["pairs"] or 1
lines.append(
f"| {slice_name} | {block['pairs']} | {block['covered']} | {block['gaps']} | "
f"{block['covered'] / pairs:.0%} |"
)
lines.append(f"| {slice_name} | {block['pairs']} | {block['covered']} | {block['gaps']} | {block['covered'] / pairs:.0%} |")
by_family = self.gaps_by_family()
if by_family:
lines += ["", "### Gaps by family", ""]
@@ -116,8 +120,9 @@ def calibrate(outcomes: Iterable[PairOutcome]) -> CalibrationReport:
if split:
covered.append(outcome.pair)
else:
gaps.append(ModelGap(pair=outcome.pair, family=outcome.family, slice=outcome.slice,
reason=outcome.reason or _default_reason(outcome)))
gaps.append(
ModelGap(pair=outcome.pair, family=outcome.family, slice=outcome.slice, reason=outcome.reason or _default_reason(outcome))
)
return CalibrationReport(
covered=tuple(sorted(covered)),
gaps=tuple(sorted(gaps, key=lambda g: (g.family, g.pair))),
+14 -6
View File
@@ -79,11 +79,14 @@ def judge(
said_vulnerable = _ask(client, model, spec, answer.witness, function)
if said_vulnerable is None:
return Verdict(rung=Rung.SUSPICION, family=spec.family, witness=answer.witness,
contradiction="the judge returned no usable answer")
return Verdict(rung=Rung.SUSPICION, family=spec.family, witness=answer.witness, contradiction="the judge returned no usable answer")
if not said_vulnerable:
return Verdict(rung=Rung.SUSPICION, family=spec.family, witness=answer.witness,
contradiction="the judge held the sanitizer on this path sufficient")
return Verdict(
rung=Rung.SUSPICION,
family=spec.family,
witness=answer.witness,
contradiction="the judge held the sanitizer on this path sufficient",
)
return answer # CORROBORATED: a real flow the judge agrees is not neutralised
@@ -96,8 +99,13 @@ def _ask(client: Any, model: str, spec: TaintSpec, witness: str, function: str)
line = tail.split(",")[0].strip(") ")
prompt = redact_secrets(
QUESTION.format(
language=spec.language, source=source.strip(), sink=sink.strip(), line=line or "?",
function=function or "?", sanitized="yes", family=spec.family,
language=spec.language,
source=source.strip(),
sink=sink.strip(),
line=line or "?",
function=function or "?",
sanitized="yes",
family=spec.family,
)
)
try:
+3 -7
View File
@@ -64,9 +64,7 @@ class ModelFinding:
contradiction: str = ""
def _arbitrate(
cpg: CpgResult, spec: TaintSpec | DominanceSpec | ConfigSpec, *, function: str, parameter_sources: bool
) -> Verdict | None:
def _arbitrate(cpg: CpgResult, spec: TaintSpec | DominanceSpec | ConfigSpec, *, function: str, parameter_sources: bool) -> Verdict | None:
"""Route a family to the arbiter that can actually decide it.
Dispatching on the spec type rather than on a family name keeps this honest: a family without an arbiter
@@ -96,8 +94,7 @@ def scan_region(
if answer is not None and answer.rung is Rung.ENTAILED:
# The graph decided. No model call, and no candidate needs asking about: this region has its finding.
return [ModelFinding(site=_site(function, answer.witness), family=spec.family, rung=Rung.ENTAILED,
witness=answer.witness)]
return [ModelFinding(site=_site(function, answer.witness), family=spec.family, rung=Rung.ENTAILED, witness=answer.witness)]
if answer is not None:
# A real flow through a sanitizer. Whether it suffices is the residual, and the model HAS coverage
@@ -106,8 +103,7 @@ def scan_region(
return []
said = _ask(client, model, residual_question(spec, answer.witness, function))
if said:
return [ModelFinding(site=_site(function, answer.witness), family=spec.family,
rung=Rung.CORROBORATED, witness=answer.witness)]
return [ModelFinding(site=_site(function, answer.witness), family=spec.family, rung=Rung.CORROBORATED, witness=answer.witness)]
return []
# The model resolved nothing. It is SILENT, not negative — so the enumerator's candidates are put to the
+5 -4
View File
@@ -56,15 +56,16 @@ def render(rows: Sequence[SliceRow], *, development: str = "", deciding: str = "
total_pairs = sum(row.pairs for row in rows)
total_covered = sum(row.covered for row in rows)
lines += ["", f"Across every slice: {total_covered}/{total_pairs} = {total_covered / total_pairs:.0%} "
"— read the rows above it, not this line."]
lines += [
"",
f"Across every slice: {total_covered}/{total_pairs} = {total_covered / total_pairs:.0%} — read the rows above it, not this line.",
]
gap = overfitting_gap(rows, development=development, deciding=deciding)
if gap is not None:
lines += [
"",
f"**Overfitting gap: {gap:+.0%}** — `{development}` (development) minus `{deciding}`, "
f"which is the deciding real-world slice.",
f"**Overfitting gap: {gap:+.0%}** — `{development}` (development) minus `{deciding}`, which is the deciding real-world slice.",
]
elif development or deciding:
lines += ["", f"**Overfitting gap: not measurable** — `{development}` or `{deciding}` is absent from this run."]
+1
View File
@@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ def taint_specs(
scoped = (facts if facts is not None else load_facts()).for_language(language)
families = taxonomy if taxonomy is not None else load_families()
sources = tuple(sorted({pattern for fact in scoped.sources for pattern in fact.patterns}))
# A shape qualifier means "this sink is safe in this form", never "this call cleans the value".
def _is_shape(fact: object) -> bool:
return bool(getattr(fact, "parameterized", False)) or getattr(fact, "literal_format_arg", None) is not None
+13 -11
View File
@@ -67,17 +67,19 @@ def _flows(rows: object, *, function: str) -> list[dict[str, object]]:
continue
if function and not _in_scope(row, function):
continue
kept.append({
"sink": str(row.get("sink", "")),
"sinkArity": row.get("sinkArity"),
"sinkArg0Literal": row.get("sinkArg0Literal"),
"inLabeledScope": row.get("inLabeledScope"),
"sinkLine": str(row.get("sinkLine", "")),
"sinkMethod": str(row.get("sinkMethod", "")),
"source": str(row.get("source", "")),
"sanitized": bool(row.get("sanitized", False)),
"length": _as_int(row.get("length")),
})
kept.append(
{
"sink": str(row.get("sink", "")),
"sinkArity": row.get("sinkArity"),
"sinkArg0Literal": row.get("sinkArg0Literal"),
"inLabeledScope": row.get("inLabeledScope"),
"sinkLine": str(row.get("sinkLine", "")),
"sinkMethod": str(row.get("sinkMethod", "")),
"source": str(row.get("source", "")),
"sanitized": bool(row.get("sanitized", False)),
"length": _as_int(row.get("length")),
}
)
return kept
-1
View File
@@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ _DEFAULT_PROVENANCE = {"sast": "synthetic", "local": "human", "github": "human",
_MANIFEST_MECHANISM = "source_reaches_sink" # cheat-sheet fixtures referenced via expected_from
class CatalogError(ValueError):
"""Raised when a pair catalog violates the label schema."""