// Performs security-focused differential review of code changes (PRs, commits, diffs). Adapts analysis depth to codebase size, uses git history for context, calculates blast radius, checks test coverage, and generates comprehensive markdown reports. Automatically detects and prevents security regressions.
Draws the 12 Houses of the Zodiac Tarot spread to inject entropy into planning when prompts are vague, ambiguous, or casually delegated. Interprets the spread to guide next steps. Use when the user says 'let fate decide', 'YOLO', 'whatever', 'idk', or other nonchalant phrases, makes Yu-Gi-Oh references, or when you are about to arbitrarily pick between multiple reasonable approaches. Prefer over ask-questions-if-underspecified when the user's tone is casual or playful rather than precision-seeking.
Scans Solana programs for 6 critical vulnerabilities including arbitrary CPI, improper PDA validation, missing signer/ownership checks, and sysvar spoofing. Use when auditing Solana/Anchor programs.
Performs comprehensive C/C++ security review for memory corruption, integer overflows, race conditions, and platform-specific vulnerabilities. Use when auditing native C/C++ applications, reviewing daemons or services for memory safety, or hunting integer overflow / use-after-free / race conditions in userspace code.
Identifies error-prone APIs, dangerous configurations, and footgun designs that enable security mistakes. Use when reviewing API designs, configuration schemas, cryptographic library ergonomics, or evaluating whether code follows 'secure by default' and 'pit of success' principles. Triggers: footgun, misuse-resistant, secure defaults, API usability, dangerous configuration.
Augments Trailmark code graphs with external audit findings from SARIF static analysis results and weAudit annotation files. Maps findings to graph nodes by file and line overlap, creates severity-based subgraphs, and enables cross-referencing findings with pre-analysis data (blast radius, taint, etc.). Use when projecting SARIF results onto a code graph, overlaying weAudit annotations, cross-referencing Semgrep or CodeQL findings with call graph data, or visualizing audit findings in the context of code structure.
Generates Mermaid diagrams from Trailmark code graphs. Produces call graphs, class hierarchies, module dependency maps, containment diagrams, complexity heatmaps, and attack surface data flow visualizations. Use when visualizing code architecture, drawing call graphs, generating class diagrams, creating dependency maps, producing complexity heatmaps, or visualizing data flow and attack surface paths as Mermaid diagrams.
| name | differential-review |
| description | Performs security-focused differential review of code changes (PRs, commits, diffs). Adapts analysis depth to codebase size, uses git history for context, calculates blast radius, checks test coverage, and generates comprehensive markdown reports. Automatically detects and prevents security regressions. |
| allowed-tools | Read Write Grep Glob Bash |
Security-focused code review for PRs, commits, and diffs.
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Small PR, quick review" | Heartbleed was 2 lines | Classify by RISK, not size |
| "I know this codebase" | Familiarity breeds blind spots | Build explicit baseline context |
| "Git history takes too long" | History reveals regressions | Never skip Phase 1 |
| "Blast radius is obvious" | You'll miss transitive callers | Calculate quantitatively |
| "No tests = not my problem" | Missing tests = elevated risk rating | Flag in report, elevate severity |
| "Just a refactor, no security impact" | Refactors break invariants | Analyze as HIGH until proven LOW |
| "I'll explain verbally" | No artifact = findings lost | Always write report |
| Codebase Size | Strategy | Approach |
|---|---|---|
| SMALL (<20 files) | DEEP | Read all deps, full git blame |
| MEDIUM (20-200) | FOCUSED | 1-hop deps, priority files |
| LARGE (200+) | SURGICAL | Critical paths only |
| Risk Level | Triggers |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Auth, crypto, external calls, value transfer, validation removal |
| MEDIUM | Business logic, state changes, new public APIs |
| LOW | Comments, tests, UI, logging |
Pre-Analysis → Phase 0: Triage → Phase 1: Code Analysis → Phase 2: Test Coverage
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Phase 3: Blast Radius → Phase 4: Deep Context → Phase 5: Adversarial → Phase 6: Report
Starting a review?
├─ Need detailed phase-by-phase methodology?
│ └─ Read: methodology.md
│ (Pre-Analysis + Phases 0-4: triage, code analysis, test coverage, blast radius)
│
├─ Analyzing HIGH RISK change?
│ ├─ Read: adversarial.md
│ │ (Phase 5: Attacker modeling, exploit scenarios, exploitability rating)
│ └─ Or delegate to: adversarial-modeler agent
│ (Autonomous attacker modeling with concrete exploit scenarios)
│
├─ Writing the final report?
│ └─ Read: reporting.md
│ (Phase 6: Report structure, templates, formatting guidelines)
│
├─ Looking for specific vulnerability patterns?
│ └─ Read: patterns.md
│ (Regressions, reentrancy, access control, overflow, etc.)
│
└─ Quick triage only?
└─ Use Quick Reference above, skip detailed docs
adversarial-modeler — Models attacker perspectives and builds exploit
scenarios for HIGH RISK code changes. Follows the 5-step adversarial
methodology (attacker model, attack vectors, exploitability rating, exploit
scenario, baseline cross-reference) and produces structured vulnerability
reports. Delegate to this agent when Phase 5 analysis is needed on high-risk
changes.
Before delivering:
audit-context-building skill:
issue-writer skill:
issue-writer --input DIFFERENTIAL_REVIEW_REPORT.md --format audit-reportInput: 5 file PR, 2 HIGH RISK files
Strategy: Use Quick Reference
1. Classify risk level per file (2 HIGH, 3 LOW)
2. Focus on 2 HIGH files only
3. Git blame removed code
4. Generate minimal report
Time: ~30 minutes
Input: 80 files, 12 HIGH RISK changes
Strategy: FOCUSED (see methodology.md)
1. Full workflow on HIGH RISK files
2. Surface scan on MEDIUM
3. Skip LOW risk files
4. Complete report with all sections
Time: ~3-4 hours
Input: 450 files, auth system rewrite
Strategy: SURGICAL + audit-context-building
1. Baseline context with audit-context-building
2. Deep analysis on auth changes only
3. Blast radius analysis
4. Adversarial modeling
5. Comprehensive report
Time: ~6-8 hours
For these cases, use standard code review instead.
Immediate escalation triggers:
These patterns require adversarial analysis even in quick triage.
Do:
Don't:
For first-time users: Start with methodology.md to understand the complete workflow.
For experienced users: Use this page's Quick Reference and Decision Tree to navigate directly to needed content.