post-patch-validation

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Post-Patch Validation

补丁后验证

Validate a security patch against the reported bug and the surrounding code it affects. Give the patch author reproducible failures to fix and identify what still needs testing. Apply the same checks to human and agent patches. The diff, author, upstream implementation, and original proof of concept alone cannot establish correctness.
针对上报的漏洞及其影响的周边代码验证安全补丁。为补丁作者提供可复现的失败用例以进行修复,并明确仍需测试的内容。对人工编写和Agent生成的补丁采用相同的检查标准。仅靠diff、作者信息、上游实现和原始概念验证(PoC)无法证明补丁的正确性。

When to Use

适用场景

  • A security fix, remediation commit, patch file, or pull request already exists.
  • An AI-generated patch needs validation before human review or merge.
  • A fix may cover one exploit path while missing variants of the same root cause.
  • A security fix may alter legitimate behavior or introduce a new vulnerability.
  • A patch author needs concrete failures and coverage gaps before another revision.
  • 已有安全修复方案、修复提交、补丁文件或Pull Request。
  • AI生成的补丁需要在人工审核或合并前进行验证。
  • 修复方案可能只覆盖了一条漏洞利用路径,却遗漏了同一根因的其他变体。
  • 安全修复可能改变合法行为或引入新的漏洞。
  • 补丁作者在进行下一轮修订前需要具体的失败用例和覆盖缺口。

When NOT to Use

不适用场景

  • No patch exists yet; use vulnerability discovery or fix implementation first.
  • The task is to review an audit finding against a report without executing patch evidence.
  • The task is only to convert a finding into a permanent project test.
  • The target is remote or production. This skill executes local code and tests only.
  • The user has not authorized execution of the repository's code or test suite.
  • 尚无补丁;应先进行漏洞发现或修复实现。
  • 任务是对照报告审核审计发现,无需执行补丁验证证据。
  • 任务仅为将某个发现转化为项目的永久测试用例。
  • 目标是远程环境或生产环境。本技能仅执行本地代码和测试。
  • 用户未授权执行代码仓库的代码或测试套件。

Quick Start

快速开始

  1. Pin the vulnerable base and patched input. Prefer immutable commits. For uncommitted work, create a binary patch file first; do not validate in the user's working tree.
  2. Scaffold a pinned plan:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py scaffold \
      --repo . \
      --base-ref <vulnerable-ref> \
      --patched-ref <patched-ref> \
      --finding-id <stable-id> \
      --finding-summary "<root cause and impact>" \
      --evidence-level runtime \
      --output post-patch-validation/plan.json
    Use
    --patch-file <path>
    instead of
    --patched-ref
    for a patch artifact. Choose the highest honest evidence level:
    source
    for source/patch invariants only,
    build
    when target code is compiled or analyzed but the reported behavior is not executed, or
    runtime
    when the checks execute the reported behavior and its safety assertions.
  3. Inspect the finding, diff, callers, sibling paths, cleanup/error paths, and existing tests. Populate
    checks
    in the generated plan. Run
    print-schema
    for the structural schema:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py print-schema
  4. Run
    validate-plan
    for the complete validation, including coverage, command restrictions, and pinned inputs, before executing code:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py validate-plan \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json
  5. Execute the evidence plan:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
      --output post-patch-validation/results
  6. Report
    result.json
    ,
    report.md
    , the evidence level, and the complete
    assessment
    . Return each finding to the patch author with its check ID, assertion, and saved logs. Identify each validation gap separately, including gaps that coexist with supported findings. After the author revises the patch, pin the new inputs and save a fresh validation run. Preserve the prior evidence. Passing supplied checks still requires human review before acceptance.
  1. 固定存在漏洞的基线版本和补丁版本的输入。优先使用不可变的提交。对于未提交的工作,先创建二进制补丁文件;不要在用户的工作树中进行验证。
  2. 搭建固定计划:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py scaffold \
      --repo . \
      --base-ref <vulnerable-ref> \
      --patched-ref <patched-ref> \
      --finding-id <stable-id> \
      --finding-summary "<root cause and impact>" \
      --evidence-level runtime \
      --output post-patch-validation/plan.json
    对于补丁工件,请使用
    --patch-file <path>
    代替
    --patched-ref
    。选择符合实际的最高证据级别:
    source
    仅用于源码/补丁不变性检查;
    build
    用于目标代码已编译或分析但未执行上报的行为的场景;
    runtime
    用于检查会执行上报的行为及其安全断言的场景。
  3. 检查漏洞发现、diff、调用方、同级路径、清理/错误路径以及现有测试。在生成的计划中填充
    checks
    字段。运行
    print-schema
    查看结构模式:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py print-schema
  4. 在执行代码前,运行
    validate-plan
    进行完整验证,包括覆盖范围、命令限制和固定输入:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py validate-plan \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json
  5. 执行证据计划:
    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
      --output post-patch-validation/results
  6. 上报
    result.json
    、
    report.md
    、证据级别以及完整的
    assessment
    结果。将每个发现连同其检查ID、断言和保存的日志返回给补丁作者。分别识别每个验证缺口,包括与已确认发现共存的缺口。作者修订补丁后,固定新的输入并保存新的验证运行结果。保留之前的证据。即使提供的检查全部通过,在接受补丁前仍需进行人工审核。

Evidence Contract

证据契约

The runner rejects incomplete plans. Supply at least one check of every kind:
KindRequired observation
control
Benign harness succeeds on both base and patch
exploit
Original safety assertion fails on base and succeeds on patch
variant
A distinct root-cause variant fails on base and succeeds on patch
behavior
Unaffected behavior succeeds with byte-identical selected output
regression
Targeted non-security regression check succeeds on both revisions
security
Adjacent/new-vulnerability check succeeds on base and patch
suite
Existing project suite, sanitizer, or deterministic fuzz campaign succeeds on patch
Commands are argv arrays, never shell strings. Put complex setup in a checked-in or plan artifact script and invoke it with
{plan_dir}
. The runner fixes locale/timezone/hash-seed inputs, executes checks in lexical ID order, records raw stdout/stderr, and never edits the original worktree. Each check's
timeout_seconds
defaults to 300 and accepts integers from 1 through 3600. Exceeding the timeout leaves a validation gap. A timeout alone does not establish a regression. Every plan also contains a sorted
submodules
array (
[]
when none). Scaffolding infers affected Gitlinks from the changed-file inventory. The runner initializes those pinned commits from the source repository's existing Git module objects, never from
.gitmodules
network URLs; initialize or fetch them in the source repository before validation.
运行器会拒绝不完整的计划。每类检查至少需提供一个:
类型所需观测结果
control
良性测试套件在基线版本和补丁版本上均运行成功
exploit
原始安全断言在基线版本上失败,在补丁版本上成功
variant
不同的根因变体在基线版本上失败,在补丁版本上成功
behavior
未受影响的行为运行成功,且选定输出字节完全一致
regression
针对性的非安全回归检查在两个版本上均运行成功
security
相邻/新漏洞检查在基线版本和补丁版本上均运行成功
suite
现有项目测试套件、sanitizer或确定性模糊测试活动在补丁版本上运行成功
命令为argv数组,绝对不能是shell字符串。将复杂的设置放在已提交的或计划工件脚本中,并通过
{plan_dir}
调用。运行器会固定区域设置/时区/哈希种子输入,按ID字典顺序执行检查,记录原始stdout/stderr,且绝不会修改原始工作树。每个检查的
timeout_seconds
默认值为300,可接受1到3600之间的整数。超时会导致验证缺口。仅超时本身不能证明存在回归问题。每个计划还包含一个排序后的
submodules
数组(无子模块时为
[]
)。脚手架会根据变更文件清单推断受影响的Gitlink。运行器会从源仓库的现有Git模块对象中初始化这些固定提交,绝不会从
.gitmodules
的网络URL初始化;请在验证前在源仓库中初始化或获取这些子模块。

Exploit and variant checks must prove they ran

漏洞利用和变体检查必须证明其已运行

A nonzero exit does not mean the vulnerability reproduced. An import error, a failed build, a missing dependency, and a failed safety assertion all exit nonzero and are indistinguishable to the runner. Every
exploit
and
variant
check must print and flush
PPV_REACHED
immediately before it evaluates its assertion, on both revisions:
json
"argv": ["python3", "-c", "import app; value = app.render('<'); print('PPV_REACHED', flush=True); assert value == '&lt;'"]
The token is also in the environment as
PPV_REACHED_MARKER
. It must land on stdout, as a line of its own. Stderr is not scanned, because a Python
SyntaxError
traceback echoes the offending source and would otherwise satisfy the check for a harness that executed nothing. A run without it leaves a
marker_missing
gap. Independent findings from other checks remain in the result. Flush explicitly: a harness whose payload segfaults or calls
_exit
loses buffered output and forfeits its own evidence.
These checks also run side-blind.
{side}
is not expanded for them,
PPV_SIDE
is absent from their environment, the checkout directory is randomly named, and the plan validator rejects any
exploit
or
variant
check whose
argv
or
env
mentions either. An assertion that can see which revision it is on can assert on that instead of on the code, which is the cheapest possible way to fake a reproduction followed by a fix.
非零退出码并不意味着漏洞已复现。导入错误、构建失败、依赖缺失和安全断言失败都会导致非零退出,运行器无法区分这些情况。每个
exploit
和
variant
检查在两个版本上评估其断言之前,都必须立即打印并刷新
PPV_REACHED
:
json
"argv": ["python3", "-c", "import app; value = app.render('<'); print('PPV_REACHED', flush=True); assert value == '&lt;'"]
该标记也以
PPV_REACHED_MARKER
的形式存在于环境变量中。它必须作为单独的一行出现在stdout中。运行器不会扫描stderr,因为Python的
SyntaxError
回溯会输出有问题的源码,否则对于什么都没执行的测试套件来说,这也会满足检查要求。没有该标记的运行会留下
marker_missing
缺口。其他检查的独立发现仍会保留在结果中。请显式刷新输出:如果测试套件的有效负载发生段错误或调用
_exit
,会丢失缓冲的输出,从而丧失自身的证据效力。
这些检查还以**side-blind(侧盲)**模式运行。不会为它们展开
{side}
变量,环境中也不存在
PPV_SIDE
,检出目录是随机命名的,并且计划验证器会拒绝任何在
argv
或
env
中提及这两者的
exploit
或
variant
检查。如果断言能够知道自己运行在哪个版本上,它就可以针对版本而非代码进行断言,这是伪造“漏洞复现后被修复”的最廉价方式。

Environment

环境

Checks run under a fixed minimal environment:
PATH
,
HOME
, and a handful of temp/user keys, plus
LANG
/
LC_ALL=C
,
TZ=UTC
,
PYTHONHASHSEED=0
,
NO_COLOR
,
TERM=dumb
. Everything else in the caller's environment is dropped. Toolchains that need more get it explicitly:
bash
uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
  --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
  --output post-patch-validation/results \
  --allow-env JAVA_HOME --allow-env CARGO_HOME
Forwarded names and values are recorded in
result.json
. A requested variable that is unset is an error, not an empty string. Two classes are refused outright: names that read as credentials (
*SECRET*
,
*TOKEN*
,
*API_KEY*
, …), because the value would be written into the result; and names that change what executes (
LD_PRELOAD
,
BASH_ENV
,
NODE_OPTIONS
,
GIT_SSH_COMMAND
, …), because those variables can change which code executes. The runner's fixed variables and every
PPV_*
name are also reserved and cannot be forwarded.
Placeholders expanded in
argv
and per-check
env
values:
{checkout}
(the revision under test),
{plan_dir}
(an isolated copy of the plan artifacts for that one invocation),
{scratch}
(a fresh opaque directory for that one check invocation), and
{side}
(
base
or
patched
, and not available to
exploit
/
variant
checks). The same values arrive as
PPV_CHECKOUT
,
PPV_PLAN_DIR
,
PPV_SCRATCH
,
PPV_SIDE
, and
PPV_CASE_ID
. Write only under
{scratch}
; the evidence directory path is not passed to checks. Base and patched invocations do not share runner-managed scratch, plan, or worktree roots. After each invocation exits, its scratch tree is archived under the deterministic
results/scratch/<check-id-and-side>
path, its private plan copy is discarded, and every readable argv element that resolves to a file is hashed in
argv_files
. Files inside the isolated plan or checkout roots are additionally retained under
results/helpers/<sha256>
up to 16 MiB; the record explains why any other file was not archived. Use a dedicated directory for
plan.json
: its sibling files and directories are copied into each invocation's
{plan_dir}
. Keep helper code under that directory's
checks/
directory or checked into the target repository so its bytes are reviewable. The machine plan containing commit pins, the current output directory, and detected prior result trees are excluded; symlinks are rejected. The clean snapshot remains only in runner memory, and exploit/variant sides execute in random order while evidence filenames remain deterministic. Stdout/stderr use anonymous or randomly named capture descriptors and are copied to the named evidence files only after the child exits, so fd inspection cannot disclose the side label.
This isolation is not a host sandbox: checks run with the caller's privileges and a malicious helper could use arbitrary external state or deliberately infer the revision from source or Git metadata. Inspect the content-addressed helper artifacts, and use an OS/container sandbox when the check code itself is untrusted.
Active validation worktrees are Git-locked with random owner tokens backed by kernel file locks, so another concurrent validator cannot prune them and PID reuse cannot impersonate an owner. If the runner is forcibly killed, the next run unlocks stale validator-owned registrations. For manual recovery, inspect
git worktree list
, then use
git worktree unlock <path>
and
git worktree remove --force <path>
(or
git worktree prune
after the path is gone).
Read evidence-model.md when designing coverage, selecting variants, or interpreting findings and validation gaps. Do not read it for routine CLI execution.
检查在固定的最小环境下运行:
PATH
、
HOME
、少量临时/用户密钥,以及
LANG
/
LC_ALL=C
、
TZ=UTC
、
PYTHONHASHSEED=0
、
NO_COLOR
、
TERM=dumb
。调用方环境中的其他所有变量都会被丢弃。需要更多环境变量的工具链需显式指定:
bash
uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
  --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
  --output post-patch-validation/results \
  --allow-env JAVA_HOME --allow-env CARGO_HOME
转发的变量名和值会记录在
result.json
中。请求的变量若未设置会视为错误,而非空字符串。两类变量会被直接拒绝:一类是看起来像凭证的变量名(
*SECRET*
、
*TOKEN*
、
*API_KEY*
等),因为其值会被写入结果;另一类是会改变执行内容的变量名(
LD_PRELOAD
、
BASH_ENV
、
NODE_OPTIONS
、
GIT_SSH_COMMAND
等),因为这些变量会改变执行的代码。运行器的固定变量以及所有
PPV_*
格式的变量名也都是保留的,不能转发。
在
argv
和每个检查的
env
值中展开的占位符包括:
{checkout}
(被测版本)、
{plan_dir}
(本次调用使用的计划工件的隔离副本)、
{scratch}
(本次检查调用使用的全新不透明目录)以及
{side}
(
base
或
patched
,
exploit
/
variant
检查不可用)。这些值也以
PPV_CHECKOUT
、
PPV_PLAN_DIR
、
PPV_SCRATCH
、
PPV_SIDE
和
PPV_CASE_ID
的形式提供。仅可在
{scratch}
目录下写入内容;证据目录路径不会传递给检查。基线版本和补丁版本的调用不会共享运行器管理的临时目录、计划或工作树根目录。每次调用退出后,其临时目录树会被归档到确定性路径
results/scratch/<check-id-and-side>
下,私有计划副本会被丢弃,且每个可解析为文件的可读argv元素都会在
argv_files
中进行哈希计算。隔离的计划或检出根目录下的文件还会被保留在
results/helpers/<sha256>
下,最大不超过16 MiB;记录中会说明其他文件未被归档的原因。请为
plan.json
使用专用目录:其同级文件和目录会被复制到每次调用的
{plan_dir}
中。将辅助代码放在该目录的
checks/
目录下,或提交到目标仓库中,以便其内容可被审核。包含提交固定信息、当前输出目录和检测到的先前结果树的机器计划会被排除;符号链接会被拒绝。干净的快照仅保留在运行器内存中,漏洞利用/变体的两侧(基线和补丁)以随机顺序执行,而证据文件名保持确定性。Stdout/stderr使用匿名或随机命名的捕获描述符,仅在子进程退出后才复制到命名的证据文件中,因此通过fd检查无法泄露侧标签。
这种隔离并非主机沙箱:检查以调用方的权限运行,恶意的辅助代码可能利用任意外部状态,或故意从源码或Git元数据中推断出版本。请检查内容寻址的辅助工件,当检查代码本身不可信时,请使用操作系统/容器沙箱。
活动的验证工作树会通过内核文件锁支持的随机所有者令牌进行Git锁定,因此其他并发的验证器无法清理它们,PID复用也无法冒充所有者。如果运行器被强制杀死,下一次运行会解锁验证器拥有的过期注册。手动恢复时,请检查
git worktree list
,然后使用
git worktree unlock <path>
和
git worktree remove --force <path>
(或在路径删除后使用
git worktree prune
)。
在设计覆盖范围、选择变体或解释发现和验证缺口时,请阅读evidence-model.md。常规CLI执行无需阅读该文档。

Coverage Rules

覆盖规则

  • Derive variants from the root cause, not cosmetic mutations of the original payload.
  • Enumerate sibling call sites, alternate callbacks/outputs, error paths, teardown, ownership, serialization, and boundary values touched by the fix.
  • Make each exploit or variant test assert the safe behavior. It must fail on the vulnerable base; a test that passes on both revisions proves nothing about remediation. Read the base-side stderr and confirm the failure is the assertion you wrote, not a harness that never got there.
  • Keep exploit and variant assertions limited to the security invariant. Test liveness, exact error types/messages, timing, and compatibility separately as
    behavior
    or
    regression
    checks; otherwise an unrelated contract change can masquerade as proof that the vulnerability remains.
  • Keep the
    control
    harness benign and make it exercise the changed component. It establishes that the harness works on both revisions. Failed controls leave gaps and prevent attributing other failures to the patch. The raw observations remain available for review.
  • Use
    behavior
    only for behavior that should remain unchanged. Exact output comparison is deliberate; move unstable values behind a deterministic test harness instead of normalizing them away in prose.
  • Make
    security
    checks pass on the vulnerable base before treating a patched failure as newly introduced. A failed baseline leaves attribution unresolved.
  • Do not edit the patch during validation. Return failures to the patch author and start a new, freshly pinned run.
  • 变体应从根因推导而来,而非对原始有效负载进行表面上的修改。
  • 枚举修复涉及的同级调用点、备用回调/输出、错误路径、销毁流程、所有权、序列化和边界值。
  • 每个漏洞利用或变体测试都应断言安全行为。它必须在存在漏洞的基线版本上失败;在两个版本上都通过的测试无法证明修复有效。请查看基线版本的stderr,确认失败是你编写的断言导致的,而非测试套件根本没执行到断言处。
  • 将漏洞利用和变体的断言限制在安全不变量范围内。将活性、精确的错误类型/消息、时序和兼容性作为
    behavior
    或
    regression
    检查单独测试;否则,不相关的契约变更可能会被伪装成漏洞仍然存在的证据。
  • 保持
    control
    测试套件的良性,并让其测试被修改的组件。它用于证明测试套件在两个版本上都能正常工作。对照检查失败会留下缺口,且无法将其他失败归因于补丁。原始观测结果仍可用于审核。
  • behavior
    仅用于应保持不变的行为。精确的输出比较是有意为之的;请将不稳定的值放在确定性测试套件之后处理,而不是在文档中通过文字说明将其归一化。
  • 在将补丁版本上的失败视为新引入的问题之前,应确保
    security
    检查在存在漏洞的基线版本上通过。基线版本失败会导致归因无法确定。
  • 验证过程中请勿修改补丁。将失败结果返回给补丁作者,并启动一次新的、重新固定输入的运行。

Reading the result

结果解读

result.json
schema 2.0 contains an
assessment
with
status
,
findings
,
gaps
, and
human_review_required
. Status is
complete
when all required checks produced usable evidence, even if some checks found failures. Status is
incomplete
when any gap remains. Findings name the check ID, check kind, and failed expectation. Gaps name the check ID and missing evidence, with a null check ID for run-level problems such as cleanup failures.
Suite checks run on the patched revision first. A completed failure triggers the same check on baseline. If baseline passes, report the failure after the patch. If both fail, preserve both logs and report that attribution is unresolved. Do not assume matching exit codes mean the same failure.
The runner exits 0 for complete checks with no findings, 1 for complete checks with findings, 10 for incomplete validation, and 64 for invalid inputs. Read the artifact even after exit 10: it can contain supported findings alongside gaps. Source or build evidence cannot establish runtime behavior. State the evidence level alongside any passing result.
result.json
的2.0版本模式包含一个
assessment
字段,其中有
status
、
findings
、
gaps
和
human_review_required
。当所有必需的检查都生成了可用证据时,
status
为
complete
(完成),即使部分检查发现了失败。当存在任何缺口时,
status
为
incomplete
(未完成)。发现项会列出检查ID、检查类型和未满足的预期。缺口项会列出检查ID和缺失的证据,对于清理失败等运行级问题,检查ID为null。
套件检查首先在补丁版本上运行。如果完成后发现失败,会在基线版本上触发相同的检查。如果基线版本通过,则报告该失败是补丁引入的。如果两者都失败,则保留两个日志,并报告归因无法确定。不要假设相同的退出码意味着相同的失败。
运行器的退出码:0表示检查完成且无发现,1表示检查完成且有发现,10表示验证未完成,64表示输入无效。即使退出码为10也请查看工件:它可能在缺口之外包含已确认的发现。源码或构建级别的证据无法证明运行时行为。请在任何通过结果旁注明证据级别。

Claude Dynamic Workflow

Claude动态工作流

Claude Code exposes the bundled workflow as
/post-patch-validation:validate-patch
. To pass structured inputs through the
Workflow
tool, use the name without a leading slash:
javascript
Workflow({
  name: 'post-patch-validation:validate-patch',
  args: {
    finding: '<finding text or local path>',
    baseRef: '<vulnerable-ref>',
    patchRef: '<patched-ref>',
    workdir: 'post-patch-validation',
  },
})
Use
patchFile
instead of
patchRef
when appropriate. The workflow uses fixed coverage lenses to propose checks and a fixed executor to run this skill. Agents may author test artifacts. The Python runner records findings and gaps, and reviewers report coverage or evidence concerns separately.
NEEDS_REPAIR
returns supported failures even when other checks left gaps.
BLOCKED
means evidence is incomplete without a supported failure. Passing checks advance to
READY_FOR_HUMAN_REVIEW
only after both evidence reviews approve, otherwise
REVIEW_REQUIRED
. The workflow cannot ask questions after launch, so pass every input up front.
Claude Code将捆绑的工作流暴露为
/post-patch-validation:validate-patch
。要通过
Workflow
工具传递结构化输入,请使用不带前导斜杠的名称:
javascript
Workflow({
  name: 'post-patch-validation:validate-patch',
  args: {
    finding: '<finding text or local path>',
    baseRef: '<vulnerable-ref>',
    patchRef: '<patched-ref>',
    workdir: 'post-patch-validation',
  },
})
适当时使用
patchFile
代替
patchRef
。该工作流使用固定的覆盖视角来提出检查建议,并使用固定的执行器来运行本技能。Agent可以编写测试工件。Python运行器会记录发现和缺口,审核人员则单独报告覆盖范围或证据方面的问题。
NEEDS_REPAIR
状态会返回已确认的失败,即使其他检查存在缺口。
BLOCKED
表示证据不完整,且没有已确认的失败。只有在两次证据审核都通过后,通过的检查才会进入
READY_FOR_HUMAN_REVIEW
状态,否则为
REVIEW_REQUIRED
。工作流启动后无法提问,因此请预先传递所有输入。

Rationalizations to Reject

应驳回的常见理由

RationalizationRequired response
"The original PoC no longer works"Test at least one independent root-cause variant
"The exploit failed on base, so it reproduced"Confirm the marker and that the failure is the assertion, not a broken harness
"The full suite passes"Prove baseline reproduction and targeted behavior explicitly
"This matches the upstream/canonical patch"Treat provenance as context, not evidence
"The diff is tiny"Exercise callers, failure paths, and teardown affected by the change
"All supplied checks passed"Preserve artifacts and require human review
"A flaky rerun passed"Keep the first pinned result; fix nondeterminism before retrying
"There is no obvious variant"Inspect sibling sites and boundaries; otherwise report the missing coverage
理由应给出的回应
"原始PoC不再起作用了"至少测试一个独立的根因变体
"漏洞利用在基线版本上失败了,所以已经复现了"确认标记存在,且失败是由断言导致的,而非测试套件损坏
"完整测试套件都通过了"明确证明基线版本复现结果和针对性行为
"这和上游/标准补丁一致"将来源视为背景信息,而非证据
"这个diff很小"测试变更影响的调用方、失败路径和销毁流程
"所有提供的检查都通过了"保留工件并要求人工审核
"重新跑了一次就过了,是不稳定"保留第一次固定输入的结果;在重试前修复不确定性问题
"没有明显的变体"检查同级位点和边界;否则报告覆盖缺口