Ran the humanizer rules over 79 prose files in the active specs (brief,
design, requirements, research and narrative docs). Removed em dashes,
significance inflation, forced rule-of-three, bold-label list items and
filler. Skipped tasks.md checklists and the retired specs (harnessx-*,
openrouter-sast-harness, unseen-repo-evaluation).
Every number, path, command, hash and identifier was preserved: checked
each file against HEAD for drift in numbers, inline code and code fences,
zero drift across all 79 files.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
The source, sink, sanitizer, operation, discharger and layout rows are not a pattern list. They are an
ontology of program elements and their security relations, and nearly all of this tool accuracy lives
there: the family census found five of seven families establishing nothing, every one for an ontology
reason with the flow engine ready and nothing to aim at.
The hook is general-purpose, not application-specific. The ontology describes libraries, frameworks
and language constructs; it does not describe repositories. An entry names an API and is justified by
what that API does, carries provenance and a weakness class, and may not encode a path or identifier
peculiar to one project -- a plugin bundled library tree was measured and declined on exactly that
ground. A measured gap is a candidate, never an entry: accretion by subject is how a general tool
becomes a fixture of its benchmark.
contributor-scan owns the ontology, so its design carries that statement and a new group 7 makes
growth measurable rather than anecdotal: report what a repository calls that nothing models, key
sanitizers to the weakness they prevent, skip arbitration where the evidence says there is nothing to
find, share one matcher across the queries, require a degradation to declare its scope, and commit
golden findings so a silent change cannot pass.
pre-push-safety-net carries the general-purpose test for its own reviews, and a task for harnesses
that report the cause of their own failure -- named by a week in which three separate causes looked
identical as one count.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
Requirements approved, design and tasks generated. 47 criteria, all traced;
13 tasks in 6 groups.
The design is deliberately conservative. The model layer joins as ONE STAGE
INSIDE MAP, beside the obligations checker it most resembles -- which already
takes entry points, produces findings and merges them. Findings are added, never
substituted; the pattern and overlay paths keep working; a machine without Joern
scans exactly as it does today. Nothing here is allowed to make the tool worse
for someone who does not have the engine.
Two decisions carry the most weight. One CPG per scan rather than per region: a
build is 5-30s on an excerpt and is the dominant cost at repository scale, so
per-region builds would make this unusable. And one total budget rather than the
enumerator's per-region cap of eight, which is meaningless across thousands of
regions; the budget is spent highest-rank-first and whatever it does not reach is
counted and reported, never silently truncated.
Task 2.2 is a go/no-go and comes before shipping: the first scan of a pinned
known-vulnerable checkout is a measurement nobody has taken, and if one CPG per
repository proves infeasible the region and budget design changes shape. Better
to learn that before groups 3-6 are built on it.
Group 5 (corpus) is last on purpose. The binding constraint today is
reachability, not corpus size -- 198 of 238 OWASP pairs went unvendored because
volume without readability makes every number worse.
The task preamble carries the predecessor's two hard-won habits: audit sibling
paths in the same commit as any routing or matching change (five bugs shared
that shape, each caught by a measurement rather than a check), and run the whole
CI list rather than the parts one remembers (CI was red for a session because
`ruff check` passing was taken as evidence for `ruff format --check`).
Not approved for implementation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
