| name | sentinelx-review-gate |
| description | Use when implementation is complete or review is requested and the user may want a focused security review of the changed code |
Security Review Gate
Overview
Run an advisory-only security review after implementation. This skill reports findings but does not block progress by default.
When to Use
- the user says the code is done or ready for review
- a feature was just implemented and needs a security pass
- a delivery or release checkpoint is approaching and source-level review would help
Workflow
- Ask once whether the user wants a focused security review, following
../sentinelx-prime/references/interaction-model.md for language behavior when available.
- If the user declines, stop and do not repeat the same offer in the same stage.
- If the user accepts, treat that acceptance as consent for read-only active analysis within the current review scope and load
references/review-categories.md.
- If git and shell access are available, inspect changed code within the current repo-local scope using
../sentinelx-prime/references/active-analysis.md. If git-backed active analysis is unavailable but shell reads still work, you may inspect files already visible in context or explicitly named by the user as a limited current-source fallback. If shell access is unavailable, stay description-based and note the fallback in assumptions.
- Load
../shared/common-web-threats.md, ../shared/finding-schema.md, and a stack profile when relevant.
- Report findings using the required fields from
../shared/finding-schema.md. Include evidence_source whenever code, diff, heuristic, or description evidence materially affected the conclusion.
- End with a closing coverage note using the shared headings: Reviewed / Not reviewed / Assumptions / Tools run.
Guardrails
- Do not block the user's progress automatically.
- Do not call heuristic review output a scan result unless a real tool was run.
- Do not equate no findings with security completeness.
- Do not describe limited current-source fallback as diff-grounded active analysis.
- Do not inspect code outside the accepted review scope just because it shares security-related keywords.
- Do not hardcode a fixed English ask prompt in this skill.
