Repository navigation
chore: add untrusted-input and constructor-validation standards, widen pr-review spec axis - #4399
Open
jarhodes314 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
jarhodes314
requested review from
albinsuresh,
didier-wenzek and
reubenmiller
as code owners
October 28, 2026 15:56
jarhodes314
requested a deployment
to
Test Pull Request
October 28, 2026 15:56 — with
GitHub Actions
Waiting
jarhodes314
force-pushed
the
jarhodes314/pr-review-spec-axis-and-untrusted-input
branch
from
October 28, 2026 15:56
20aaa89 to
619796c
Compare
jarhodes314
temporarily deployed
to
Test Pull Request
October 28, 2026 15:56 — with
GitHub Actions
Inactive
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
rina23q
reviewed
Nov 4, 2026
rina23q
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2026
jarhodes314
force-pushed
the
jarhodes314/pr-review-spec-axis-and-untrusted-input
branch
from
November 10, 2026 10:08
a0eb40f to
fe8cc8b
Compare
… pr-review spec axis CODING_STANDARDS.md gains a rule to validate in the type's own constructor and an "Untrusted input" subsection. The pr-review Spec prompt now also reports requirements that are the wrong solution and searches for stale uses of a replaced pattern outside the diff. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: James Rhodes <[email protected]>
jarhodes314
force-pushed
the
jarhodes314/pr-review-spec-axis-and-untrusted-input
branch
from
November 10, 2026 10:11
fe8cc8b to
8446b19
Compare
Contributor
Robot Results
Failed Tests
|
jarhodes314
had a problem deploying
to
Test Auto
November 11, 2026 10:06 — with
GitHub Actions
Failure
jarhodes314
enabled auto-merge
November 11, 2026 10:06
This branch had an error being deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proposed changes
A manual review of #4381 found three problems that the
pr-reviewskill would not have flagged, because no review axis questions the spec itself or looks outside the diff: a value from a command payload reachingsudoas an option, an unnecessarysudo -n --listprobe that the spec asked for, and stale docs and help text that still show the old pattern. A fourth finding (validation inTryFrom<TomlOperationWorkflow>that#[serde(try_from)]bypasses) had no written standard to point to.CODING_STANDARDS.md Correctness Errors + Validate in the type's own constructor, so serde and tests can't bypass it thin-edge.io specifics + Untrusted input: a payload value reaching spawn/sudo/path/shell/URL cannot be read as something else (option, env assignment, other directory, other command, other URL) .agents/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md Spec prompt (a) missing (b) unrequested (c) wrong implementation + (d) the spec asks for the wrong solution: name the simpler or safer one + search the repo outside the diff for remaining uses of a replaced patternBoth new standards land in sections that the Correctness axis already checks, so the skill's section routing is unchanged.
Types of changes
Paste Link to the issue
No issue. Follow-up from the review of #4381.
Checklist
just prepare-devonce)just formatas mentioned in CODING_GUIDELINESjust checkas mentioned in CODING_GUIDELINESFurther comments
The stale-pattern search sits in the Spec prompt, so it only runs when the PR has a spec or linked issue. Moving it to Correctness would make it run on every review; I kept it with Spec because "the change replaced X" is usually stated in the spec. Not yet validated by a
/pr-review 4381run against the manual findings.🤖 Generated with Claude Code