/trailmark-review-gate

name: trailmark-review-gate
description: "Runs a Trailmark structural review gate over a branch, pull request, fix commit, release diff, or git ref range to detect new entrypoints, new tainted paths, removed validation or authorization calls, privilege-boundary drift, blast-radius growth, complexity growth, and newly reachable sensitive sinks. Use when reviewing a PR, branch, remediation commit, or release diff where graph-level security regressions should be checked before merge."
allowed-tools:
  - Bash
  - Read
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Write

Trailmark Review Gate

Apply deterministic security gate rules to Trailmark structural diff evidence. This skill does not replace line-level review. It produces a compact structural packet reviewers can cite while they inspect the code.

When to Use

• Reviewing a branch, pull request, release diff, or fix commit
• Checking whether a change expands attack surface
• Looking for removed validation or authorization on reachable paths
• Comparing before/after taint, privilege-boundary, blast-radius, or

complexity signals

• Producing graph evidence for a differential review

When NOT to Use

• Single-snapshot analysis. Use `trailmark` or `trailmark-structural`.
• Text-diff review only. Use `differential-review`.
• Full vulnerability discovery. Use an audit or bug-finding workflow.
• One static finding. Use `trailmark-finding-triage`.
• Tooling is unavailable and the user wants manual review only.

Rationalizations to Reject

| Rationalization | Why It Is Wrong | Required Action | |---|---|---| | "The line diff is small, so no graph gate is needed" | Small changes can create new call paths | Compare before/after graphs | | "Graph gate passed, so the PR is secure" | The gate only checks structural regressions | Still perform line-level review | | "Trailmark failed, so pass the gate" | Tool failure is unknown risk, not success | Emit `UNKNOWN` | | "Tests pass, so removed validation is fine" | Tests may miss affected entrypoint paths | Review the removed path manually | | "Only new code matters" | Removed auth, validation, and callers can be higher risk than additions | Review removals and path changes |

Workflow

Review Gate Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Resolve before/after inputs
- [ ] Step 2: Build graph-evolution evidence
- [ ] Step 3: Normalize structural changes
- [ ] Step 4: Apply gate rules
- [ ] Step 5: Emit review packet and actions

Step 1: Resolve Inputs

Accept two refs, a branch name, a commit range, or before/after directories. Do not check out branches unnecessarily. Prefer `git diff`, `git show`, and git worktrees, following the `graph-evolution` snapshot workflow.

Step 2: Build Graph Evidence

Run `graph-evolution` or equivalent Trailmark before/after graph analysis. Both snapshots must run `engine.preanalysis()` so taint, privilege-boundary, blast-radius, complexity, and entrypoint signals are available.

Record Trailmark version and any feature probes. If graph construction fails, emit `UNKNOWN`.

Step 3: Normalize Changes

Normalize evidence into:

• added, removed, and modified nodes
• added and removed edges
• entrypoint set changes
• taint membership changes
• privilege-boundary membership changes
• blast-radius changes
• complexity changes
• newly reachable sensitive sinks
• unresolved, proxy, or dynamic edge changes

Step 4: Apply Gate Rules

Apply the rules in [references/gate-rules.md](references/gate-rules.md). Gate verdicts are:

| Verdict | Meaning | |---|---| | `FAIL` | A high-risk structural regression needs review before acceptance | | `WARN` | A meaningful graph change needs reviewer attention | | `PASS` | No configured structural gate fired | | `UNKNOWN` | Trailmark failed or evidence is too incomplete |

Step 5: Emit Packet

Write the packet using [references/output-format.md](references/output-format.md), then hand it to the branch reviewer. Use [references/review-integration.md](references/review-integration.md) when combining this packet with `differential-review` or another PR review process.

Requirements

• Never mutate the user's working branch while comparing refs.
• Never report `PASS` when Trailmark failed.
• Separate graph evidence from manual security judgment.
• Include exact changed nodes or paths for every `FAIL` and `WARN`.
• Include limitations when parser, proxy, unresolved-call, or dynamic-dispatch

uncertainty affects the verdict.