trailmark-review-gate

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

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.

3installs

Sourcetrailofbits/skills

Added on2026-08-22

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add trailofbits/skills trailmark-review-gate

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

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. 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, then hand it to the branch reviewer. Use 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.