security-gate

name

security-gate

description

Feature-scoped security gate that runs at the Building → UAT seam (before pk ship). It classifies the change into sensitive categories (auth, payments, user-input, external-APIs, file-storage, PII) and, on any match, runs the category-specific security checklist against the feature's diff — producing a PASS/FAIL report + a Linear comment, and on PASS the sha-matched sentinel pk ship hard-requires (v4.17.0) on any project with a categories file. It does not transition state. Portable framework; the project's category definitions live in a per-project checks file. Different from /security-review (periodic repo-wide audit) and /pr-security-review (PR-scoped antagonistic review).

/security-gate

North star: /verify proves the code is correct. /security-gate proves a security-sensitive change was actually reviewed for its category's failure modes before it ships to UAT. Most features touch no sensitive category and pass instantly; the ones that do don't reach UAT unreviewed.

You are a security engineer running the feature-scoped security gate at the ship seam — pk ship (the source state is Building for phase work, In Progress for ad-hoc work) → UAT. You first classify what the change touches; if it touches a sensitive category (auth, payments, user input, external APIs, file storage, PII), you run that category's checklist against the feature's diff and produce an evidence-based verdict. If it touches none, the gate is a clean PASS — that is the common case, and it must be cheap.

This is the portable framework. The concrete, project-specific signals (which paths/keywords mean "auth" in this repo, where the rate limiter lives, which tables hold PII, what the project's auth primitive is called) live in a project category-definitions file you read at runtime — never hardcode them here. A project that hasn't written one gets scaffolded a template and stops.

Three security surfaces, three jobs — don't conflate them:

Skill	Scope	Cadence	This gate?
/security-gate (this)	the feature's diff, category-triggered	once per feature, at Building → UAT	—
/security-review	the whole repo	periodic / pre-release	no
/pr-security-review	a PR, antagonistic	on demand for risky PRs	no

It is the per-feature counterpart to /verify: /verify runs every task and is fast; /security-gate runs once per feature and only does real work when a sensitive category is touched. It is advisory this release — it reports and comments, it does not move Linear state and does not block pk ship. See § Future.

Where this sits in the pipeline

pk next → pk branch → /work → /verify ──(Flag check F)──► pk ship (→ UAT) → …
                                  │
                                  └─ /verify auto-runs this gate when a
                                     categories file exists, BEFORE auto-ship.
                                     None matched → instant PASS (no flag).
                                     Matched → category review → verdict flag.

/verify answers "is the code correct?"; /security-gate answers "if this change is security-sensitive, was it reviewed for its category's failure modes?" — before the change reaches UAT (pk ship).

It runs automatically, from inside /verify. The /work → /verify → pk ship rollover is uninterrupted (/verify auto-invokes pk ship on a clean Pass), so there is no human seam between /verify and pk ship for a standalone step to occupy. Instead /verify's Flag check F (v4.4.0) runs this gate: when the project has a Security categories file, /verify classifies the diff and, on a category match, runs the category review and surfaces the verdict as a human-decision flag — which pauses auto-ship for the user to RECONCILE (exactly like the migration self-review). A no-match adds no flag and the rollover proceeds. This skill is the canonical methodology Flag check F follows; you can also invoke /security-gate standalone at any time (re-running after a fix, or on a branch verified earlier).

Triggers

• /security-gate — primary; resolves the feature issue + diff from the current branch
• /security-gate <ISSUE-ID> — explicit
• "run the security gate" / "does this need security review?"

Config (read from method.config.md)

Key	Purpose	Default
Security categories	Path to the project category-definitions file	resources/security-categories.md
Security gate report path	Where to write the gate report	Reports/
Integration branch	The base the feature diffs against	dev
Project display name	Report header + comment	(project name)

Linear is best-effort and advisory. Resolve the feature issue, post a comment with the verdict, and do not change its workflow state — pk ship owns the Building → UAT transition. Look up the issue via the project's Linear MCP; if Linear is unreachable, write the report anyway and tell the user to paste the verdict. Never hardcode Linear UUIDs.

Step 0 — Load the category-definitions file (gate)

Read the file at Security categories (default resources/security-categories.md).

• If it doesn't exist, STOP and tell the user:

  No security-category definitions found at <path>. This skill is the framework; the project supplies the category signals.

  Then scaffold one and stop for the user to fill it in:

  • If pipekit/templates/security-categories.template.md exists (synced projects), copy it to <path>.
  • Otherwise create <path> directly with the template's sections — one per category (Auth, Payments, User input, External APIs, File storage, PII), each with the project's path globs, keywords, and validation specifics, plus a Not applicable section for categories the project genuinely has none of (e.g. "Payments — no billing in this product").
  • Do not invent project specifics — leave clearly-marked placeholders.

The definitions file is the substance; this skill is the discipline + report shape.

Step 1 — Resolve the feature and the changed surface

CURRENT=$(git branch --show-current)
ISSUE="${1:-}"
[ -z "$ISSUE" ] && ISSUE=$(echo "$CURRENT" | grep -oE '[A-Z]+-[0-9]+' | head -1)

BASE=$(pk config "Integration branch" "dev")   # match /verify + /work; falls to the repo's default branch
# Changed surface = this feature's COMMITTED diff against the integration branch
# (three-dot: changes on the branch only, not base churn). Fetch first so a stale or
# missing origin ref doesn't silently narrow the diff.
git fetch -q origin "$BASE" 2>/dev/null || true   # best-effort; worktrees share the object store
CHANGED=$(git diff --name-only "origin/$BASE...HEAD" 2>/dev/null)
[ -z "$CHANGED" ] && CHANGED=$(git diff --name-only "$BASE...HEAD" 2>/dev/null)
CHANGED=$(printf '%s\n' "$CHANGED" | grep -v '^Reports/')   # exclude the gate's own past reports

Fail safe on an indeterminate surface. If CHANGED is empty after both committed-diff attempts, do not classify it as "no sensitive category" — the surface couldn't be determined (stale/missing origin/$BASE, detached HEAD, or the work isn't committed yet). Stop and tell the user: "Could not determine the changed surface against <BASE> — commit the work and ensure origin/<BASE> is fetched, then re-run." An empty diff is a could-not-run, not a PASS — a silent miss here ships an unreviewed sensitive change. (Do not fall back to git diff HEAD working-tree changes: after /work commits, that is empty and would mask a fully-committed sensitive feature as a clean pass.)

Gather, as the classification input:

• the changed file list (above) — the ground truth of what this feature touches,
• the diff hunks for those files (so the classifier reads the actual code, not just paths),
• if available, the Linear issue's Scope / Dependencies (supplementary — the diff is authoritative).

If ISSUE is set and Linear is reachable, post a comment via the project's Linear MCP — mcp__linear-server__linear_createComment (the camelCase @tacticlaunch/mcp-linear surface): "Starting security gate review — {YYYY-MM-DD}". Do not call any state-changing tool. If ISSUE can't be resolved, proceed anyway and skip the comment.

Print one line:

Security gate: <ISSUE | (no issue)>  ·  Base: <BASE>  ·  Changed files: <n>  ·  Defs: <path>

Step 2 — Classify the change (sub-agent, evidence-based)

Spawn a read-only classifier sub-agent (subagent_type: "general-purpose", execution tier per method.config.md § Model Policy — default sonnet, effort medium — allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob). Give it the changed file list, the diff, and the project's category definitions. It returns, for each of the six categories, matched / not-matched with evidence (file:line, the matched keyword/glob, or the spec line).

Classify from opened files, never from a filename alone. A path under auth/ that only changed a comment is not an auth change; a payments string in a test fixture is not a payments change. The classifier opens the cited hunk and confirms the change actually exercises the category. Err toward matching when genuinely ambiguous — a false match costs one extra checklist run; a false miss ships an unreviewed sensitive change.

The six categories:

Category	Signals (project file refines these)
Auth	login, session, password, OAuth/JWT, token issuance, requireAuth/guard changes, RLS policy edits
Payments	Stripe/billing/checkout/subscription/refund, webhook handlers for a payment provider, money math
User input	forms, file uploads, search, comments — any user-supplied string that reaches the DB, a query, a template, or the shell
External APIs	webhooks, third-party integrations, SSO callbacks, outbound calls with a secret
File storage	S3 / Supabase storage / any bucket, upload/download URLs, public-bucket changes
PII	emails, names, addresses, phone numbers, anything GDPR-relevant — new columns, logs, or exports of personal data

Account for all six categories — silence is not a pass. The classifier must return a verdict for every category as one of: matched (run the checklist), N/A (the definitions file lists it under Not applicable, with the reason), or not-matched (evidence-cited: the diff touches nothing in this category). If a category has no signals defined in the project file and isn't listed N/A, evaluate it against the generic signal table above and mark it not-matched (no project signals defined — generic-only) so an incomplete definitions file is visible in the report, never an invisible pass.

If no category matches, skip to Step 5 with status PASS (no sensitive category touched) — no review subagents needed. (This is distinct from the indeterminate surface in Step 1, which is a could-not-run, not a PASS.)

Step 3 — Per-category review (parallel sub-agents)

For each matched category, spawn a read-only review sub-agent (general-purpose, execution tier per method.config.md § Model Policy — default sonnet, effort medium — allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob) scoped to the feature diff. Run them in parallel. Each runs its category checklist and returns findings with file:line evidence, a severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low) and a confidence — and, where the category checklist is clean, an explicit cited "verified, no issue" verdict (coverage before filtering, per /security-review).

Per-category checklist (the project file refines the specifics):

Category	What the review verifies
Auth	session fixation; token leakage (URL/log/client); password handling (hashing, never logged); login path rate-limited against brute force; authorization checked at the query, not just the UI
Payments	webhook signature verification; idempotency keys on charge/refund; amounts server-computed not client-trusted; PII/card data redacted in logs; refund/credit paths authorized
User input	input sanitized at the boundary; parameterized queries (no string-built SQL); file-type/size validation on uploads; no eval/template injection; output encoded
External APIs	secrets from the vault not source; request signing / mutual auth where required; error surface contained (no upstream error body leaked to the client); timeouts + retry bounds
File storage	signed URLs (not public objects) for private data; bucket ACLs least-privilege; mime-type + size validation on upload; no path traversal in object keys
PII	storage location appropriate (not a public bucket / client-readable table); retention/deletion pathway exists; not emitted to logs or analytics; access authorized at the query

Skip any category the definitions file lists under Not applicable (record it as N/A — <reason>, not as a pass).

Step 4 — Adversarial verification, reconcile, rate

Run an adversarial pass over the candidate findings (mirroring /security-review and pipekit-discipline.md § DOUBT): for each finding, try to refute it — open the cited code and check it's actually reachable and exploitable given auth, RLS, and the real call sites. Mark each confirmed / refuted / needs-info. Keep refuted items in an appendix with the reason; only confirmed and needs-info feed the verdict.

Headline status (a single read-only gate run can't iterate-to-fix, so the rubric is on confirmed severity, not an "addressed" loop):

• FAIL — any confirmed Critical or High finding.
• WARNINGS — only Medium/Low confirmed (or needs-info the user judged acceptable).
• PASS — no category matched, OR every matched category's checklist clean (no confirmed Critical/High).

This gate is hard as of v4.17.0: on a project with a Security categories file, pk ship refuses without a HEAD-matching PASS sentinel (Step 5 writes it). A FAIL writes no sentinel — close the findings and re-run the gate; the escape hatches are pk ship --force-secgate (logs a Linear audit comment) or PK_SECGATE_BYPASS=1 (emergency; logs to Logs/SecurityGate/bypass.log). A plain pk ship --force waives only the verify gate, not this one (v4.20.0).

Step 5 — Generate the report + sentinel

Write <Security gate report path>/Security_Gate_<ISSUE>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.md (omit <ISSUE>_ if none):

# Security Gate — {ISSUE}  ·  {Project display name}
**Base:** {BASE}  ·  **Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}  ·  **Changed files:** {n}

## Summary
- **Status:** PASS / FAIL / WARNINGS
- **Categories matched:** {list, or "none — no sensitive category touched"}
- **Confirmed findings:** Critical {n} · High {n} · Medium {n} · Low {n}

## Classification
| Category | Matched | Evidence |
|----------|---------|----------|
| Auth | yes/no/N/A | `<file>:<line>` / keyword |
| Payments | … | … |
| User input | … | … |
| External APIs | … | … |
| File storage | … | … |
| PII | … | … |

## Findings (confirmed + needs-info)
### Critical
{list with file:line, or "None"}
### High
{list, or "None"}
### Medium / Low
{list, or "None"}

## Refuted (appendix)
{finding + why refuted, or "None"}

## Next actions
{specific, ordered — what to fix before pk ship, or "Clear to ship"}

On PASS — and only on PASS — also write the sentinel pk ship reads (v4.17.0 hard gate):

_gate_head=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
_gate_dir="Logs/SecurityGate/$(date +%Y%m%d)/${ISSUE}"
mkdir -p "$_gate_dir"
printf '# secgate-complete\n\nissue: %s\nstatus: PASS\nsha: %s\ncategories: %s\n' \
  "$ISSUE" "$_gate_head" "${MATCHED_CATEGORIES:-none}" > "$_gate_dir/secgate-complete.md"

• Write it on every PASS — including the no-category-matched instant PASS. pk ship cannot classify the diff itself; the sentinel is how it knows the classifier ran and came back clean at this HEAD.
• Never write it on FAIL, WARNINGS-you'd-block-on, or an indeterminate surface (Step 1's could-not-run). A missing sentinel is the blocking signal.
• The sha: is the gated HEAD — any commit after the gate (including a fix for a finding) correctly invalidates it; re-run the gate on the new HEAD.

Step 6 — Post the Linear comment + present to user

• If ISSUE resolved and Linear reachable: post a comment — the Summary + Classification blocks + the report path. Do not change state.
• Present to the user: overall status, matched categories, confirmed findings by severity, and the explicit next-action — Clear to ship if PASS, or Hold — close {n} finding(s) before pk ship if FAIL.

Severity rubric

• Critical — directly exploitable: auth bypass, unverified payment webhook, SQL injection from user input, a private object served publicly, PII in a public store. Ship-stopping.
• High — exploitable under conditions: missing idempotency on a charge path, login with no brute-force limit, an upstream error body leaked to the client, a token in a log.
• Medium — defense-in-depth gap with real impact (validation present but incomplete; redaction partial).
• Low — minor hardening / observability gap.

Key principles

1. Classify before you review. The gate's first job is to decide whether a review is owed. Most features owe none — keep that path instant. The expensive checklist only runs on a confirmed category match.
2. Feature-scoped, not repo-wide. This reviews this diff for its categories — /security-review owns the whole-repo audit. Don't re-audit the world here.
3. Evidence-based, adversarially verified. Every finding (and every all-clear) cites file:line; every candidate is refutation-tested before it counts. No vibes.
4. Hard-gated, once per feature. It reports, comments, and (on PASS) writes the sentinel pk ship requires; it does not transition Linear state and does not run per task.
5. Framework here, signals in the project. Never hardcode a repo's auth primitive, rate-limiter path, or PII tables — they live in the definitions file and method.config.md.

What this skill does NOT do

• No Linear state transitions — pk ship owns Building → UAT; this only comments.
• No code modifications — sub-agents are read-only (Read, Bash, Grep, Glob).
• No per-task running — that's /verify. This runs once, before pk ship.
• No whole-repo audit — that's /security-review. This is the feature diff.
• No blocking of its own — the skill writes the PASS sentinel; pk ship does the refusing (v4.17.0). The skill never aborts a ship itself.
• No session-log writes — /pk-exit owns the session log.

Overlap with /prod-ready (rate limiting)

Rate limiting appears in both gates, by design, at different layers:

• /security-gate verifies this feature's sensitive path is correct in isolation — e.g. the login route is itself rate-limited against brute force (an Auth-category check).
• /prod-ready verifies the app throttles public traffic at all — that a new public endpoint is covered by the platform's rate-limit middleware.

Same word, different concern. Both run; neither subsumes the other. (Documented from the other side in sop/Production_Readiness_SOP.md § Overlap.)

The hard gate (shipped v4.17.0)

The fast-follow documented since v4.4.0 is built: this skill writes a sha-matched sentinel on PASS (Logs/SecurityGate/<date>/<issue>/secgate-complete.md, mirroring /verify's verify-complete.md), and pk ship refuses to push / open the PR when the project's Security categories file exists and no sentinel matches HEAD. Escapes: pk ship --force-secgate (logs a Linear audit comment) or PK_SECGATE_BYPASS=1 (logs to Logs/SecurityGate/bypass.log); pk ship --force waives only the verify gate (v4.20.0). Projects without a categories file are unaffected — the same file that arms this skill arms the ship gate, so opting in is one file.