sast-report

name	sast-report
description	Consolidate all SAST vulnerability results from the sast/ folder into a single final report ranked by severity and confidentiality impact. Reads all *-results.md files and produces sast/final-report.md. Run after all vulnerability detection skills complete. Use when asked to generate a final report, consolidate findings, or summarize security results.

Final Security Report Generation

You are consolidating all completed SAST vulnerability scan results into a single prioritized security report.

Prerequisites: At least one sast/*-results.md file must exist. Run the vulnerability detection skills first if they don't.

---

What to Include

Only include findings with these classifications from each result file:

• [VULNERABLE]
• [LIKELY VULNERABLE]

Exclude [NOT VULNERABLE] and [NEEDS MANUAL REVIEW] findings from the main report body (count them only in the summary).

---

Severity Ranking

Assign each finding a severity tier — Critical, High, Medium, or Low — using the table below as your baseline. Adjust up or down based on context (e.g., an IDOR that exposes financial records is High, not Medium).

Vulnerability Class	Default Severity
RCE via command injection, eval, or unsafe deserialization	Critical
SSTI (Server-Side Template Injection)	Critical
SQLi on authentication endpoints	Critical
JWT algorithm confusion (alg:none, RS256→HS256)	Critical
File upload leading to code execution (webshell)	Critical
SQLi with full data extraction capability	High–Critical
GraphQL injection (user-controlled operation document enabling unauthorized fields or gateway abuse)	High–Critical
XXE with file read or internal SSRF	High–Critical
Missing authentication on sensitive endpoints	High–Critical
SSRF reaching internal services or cloud metadata	High
Path traversal reading sensitive or config files	High
File upload with stored content accessible to others	High
IDOR on PII, financial, or health data	High
XSS (stored/persistent)	High
JWT with missing or bypassable claim validation	Medium–High
Missing authentication on lower-sensitivity endpoints	Medium
IDOR on non-sensitive data	Medium
XSS (reflected or DOM)	Medium
Business logic flaws (price manipulation, workflow bypass)	Medium
Information disclosure of non-sensitive data	Low

Confidentiality as a tiebreaker: When two findings share the same baseline severity, rank higher the one with greater confidentiality impact — i.e., the greater its potential to expose sensitive user data, credentials, or system internals.

---

Execution

Perform all steps in-session (no subagents needed).

Step 1: Discover result files

Check which of these files exist in sast/:

• idor-results.md
• sqli-results.md
• ssrf-results.md
• xss-results.md
• rce-results.md
• xxe-results.md
• fileupload-results.md
• pathtraversal-results.md
• ssti-results.md
• jwt-results.md
• missingauth-results.md
• businesslogic-results.md
• graphql-results.md

Also read sast/architecture.md if it exists (use it for the project name and context when writing severity rationale).

Step 2: Read and extract findings

Read each existing result file. For every finding classified as [VULNERABLE] or [LIKELY VULNERABLE], extract:

• Finding title
• Vulnerability type (derived from the source file)
• File / endpoint affected
• Issue description
• Impact description
• Proof / code path
• Remediation
• Dynamic test steps (if present)

Step 3: Score and sort

Assign each finding a severity level (Critical / High / Medium / Low) using the table above. Sort all findings:

1. Critical first, then High, Medium, Low
2. Within each tier, sort by confidentiality impact (highest first)

Step 4: Write sast/final-report.md

Use exactly this output format:

---

# Security Assessment Final Report

**Project**: [name from architecture.md, or infer from codebase]
**Generated**: [current date]
**Scans completed**: [comma-separated list of scan types that had result files]

---

## Executive Summary

| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | N |
| High     | N |
| Medium   | N |
| Low      | N |
| **Total confirmed findings** | **N** |

Scans with no confirmed vulnerabilities: [list]
Findings requiring manual review: N (see individual result files for details)

---

## Vulnerability Index

| # | Title | Type | Severity | Endpoint / File |
|---|-------|------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | ... | RCE | Critical | `POST /api/exec` |
| 2 | ... | SQLi | High | `GET /api/users` |

---

## Findings

### Critical

#### [Finding Title] — [Vuln Type]

- **Source scan**: `sast/[type]-results.md`
- **Classification**: Vulnerable *(or "Likely Vulnerable")*
- **Endpoint / File**: ...
- **Severity rationale**: [1–2 sentences explaining why this is Critical, with focus on confidentiality and integrity impact]
- **Issue**: ...
- **Impact**: ...
- **Proof**:

[code path or evidence from original finding]

- **Remediation**: ...
- **Dynamic Test**:

[curl command or step-by-step test instructions from original finding]

---

### High

[Same structure as Critical section]

---

### Medium

[Same structure]

---

### Low

[Same structure]

---

## Appendix: Scan Coverage

| Scan | Result File | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|
| IDOR | `sast/idor-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| SQLi | `sast/sqli-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| SSRF | `sast/ssrf-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| XSS | `sast/xss-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| RCE | `sast/rce-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| XXE | `sast/xxe-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| File Upload | `sast/fileupload-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| Path Traversal | `sast/pathtraversal-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| SSTI | `sast/ssti-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| JWT | `sast/jwt-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| Missing Auth | `sast/missingauth-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| Business Logic | `sast/businesslogic-results.md` | Completed / Not run |
| GraphQL injection | `sast/graphql-results.md` | Completed / Not run |

---

Important Reminders

• Include ONLY [VULNERABLE] and [LIKELY VULNERABLE] findings in the Findings section.
• Mark [LIKELY VULNERABLE] findings clearly: append ⚠ Likely Vulnerable after the finding title.
• Preserve all details from the original findings — do not summarize or truncate Proof, Remediation, or Dynamic Test sections.
• If sast/architecture.md exists, use it to enrich the severity rationale with application-specific context (e.g., "this endpoint handles payment data, making confidentiality impact Critical").
• Omit severity sections entirely (e.g., the ### Low heading) if no findings fall in that tier.