/differential-review

name: differential-review
description: Security-focused differential code review with blast radius analysis, risk-adaptive depth (DEEP/FOCUSED/SURGICAL), git history correlation, and structured finding format. Adapted from Trail of Bits. Use when reviewing PRs, commits, or code changes for security implications.

Differential Review

Security-focused code review that adapts depth to codebase size and change risk. Goes beyond style -- finds vulnerabilities, logic errors, and blast radius.

Review Depth Modes

DEEP (Small codebase, < 5K lines changed)

• Line-by-line analysis of every changed file
• Full control flow tracing through changed paths
• Cross-reference every function call to its definition
• Check all error paths and edge cases

FOCUSED (Medium codebase, 5K-50K lines)

• Prioritize files touching auth, crypto, input parsing, state mutation
• Trace data flow from inputs to outputs through changed code
• Skip cosmetic changes (formatting, comments, renames)
• Deep-dive only on security-sensitive paths

SURGICAL (Large codebase, > 50K lines)

• Review only the diff, not surrounding code
• Focus exclusively on: new attack surface, removed security controls, changed trust boundaries
• Flag anything that needs a separate deep review

Review Process

Phase 1: Blast Radius Assessment

Before reading any code:

# What changed?
git diff --stat <base>...<head>

# How much changed?
git diff --shortstat <base>...<head>

# Which files are security-sensitive?
git diff --name-only <base>...<head> | grep -iE '(auth|crypto|token|secret|permission|middleware|validator|sanitiz)'

Classify the change:

• **Surface area**: How many files, functions, modules touched?
• **Trust boundary crossing**: Does data flow between trust levels?
• **Security control modification**: Are auth/authz/validation/crypto paths changed?
• **Data model change**: Are schemas, types, or storage formats modified?

Phase 2: Git History Correlation

Check if the changed code has a history of bugs:

# How often has this file been changed? (churn = risk)
git log --oneline --follow <file> | wc -l

# Were there recent security fixes in this area?
git log --oneline --grep="fix\|vuln\|security\|CVE" -- <file>

# Who else has touched this code?
git log --format='%an' -- <file> | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn

High churn + security fix history = increase review depth.

Phase 3: Structured Review

For each changed file, analyze in this order:

1. **Input validation**: Are new inputs validated? Are existing validations preserved? 2. **Authentication/Authorization**: Do access controls apply to new code paths? 3. **Data flow**: Can untrusted data reach sensitive operations? 4. **Error handling**: Do error paths leak information or skip cleanup? 5. **State mutation**: Are state changes atomic? Race conditions possible? 6. **Crypto usage**: Correct algorithms, key sizes, modes, IVs? 7. **Logging**: Are sensitive values logged? Are security events NOT logged?

Finding Format

## [SEVERITY] Finding Title

**Location**: file.ts:42-58
**Category**: [Input Validation | Auth | Crypto | Data Flow | State | Logic]
**Confidence**: [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]

**Description**:
What the vulnerability is, in one paragraph.

**Impact**:
What an attacker can achieve by exploiting this.

**Proof**:
The specific code path or data flow that demonstrates the issue.

**Recommendation**:
Concrete fix with code example if possible.

Severity Classification

| Severity | Criteria | Examples | |----------|----------|---------| | CRITICAL | Remote exploitation, no auth required, data breach | SQL injection, auth bypass, RCE | | HIGH | Requires some access, significant impact | Privilege escalation, IDOR, stored XSS | | MEDIUM | Limited impact or complex exploitation | Reflected XSS, info disclosure, CSRF | | LOW | Minimal impact, defense-in-depth | Missing headers, verbose errors, weak config | | INFO | Best practice, no direct vulnerability | Code quality, missing rate limit, logging gap |

Rationalizations to Reject

Common excuses that lead to missed findings. Do NOT accept these:

| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action | |----------------|---------------|-----------------| | "It's behind auth" | Auth can be bypassed | Verify auth is enforced AND correct | | "We trust this input" | Trust boundaries change | Validate at every boundary | | "It's just internal" | Internal networks get compromised | Apply defense in depth | | "Nobody would do that" | Attackers do unexpected things | Test the unexpected case | | "We'll fix it later" | Later never comes in security | Flag it NOW with severity | | "The framework handles it" | Frameworks have bypasses | Verify the framework actually applies | | "It's the same as before" | Before might have been wrong too | Review the original if suspicious |

Anti-Hallucination Rules

• **Never say "It probably..."** -- say "Unclear; need to inspect X"
• **Never assume a function is safe** without reading its implementation
• **Never skip a finding** because it seems minor -- document everything
• **Every claim must reference a specific file and line number**
• **If you haven't read the code, say so** -- don't infer behavior from names

Diff Review Checklist

[ ] Blast radius assessed (files, trust boundaries, security controls)
[ ] Git history checked for churn and past security fixes
[ ] All new inputs validated
[ ] Auth/authz applied to new endpoints/paths
[ ] Error handling doesn't leak sensitive info
[ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
[ ] State mutations are atomic
[ ] Crypto usage follows current best practices
[ ] Logging doesn't include sensitive data
[ ] Removed code didn't contain security controls that are now missing
[ ] Dependencies added/updated are from trusted sources
[ ] Test coverage exists for security-critical paths

Integration with vibecosystem

• **code-reviewer agent**: Use this skill for security-focused revie