Skip to content

feat: validate mutual Compose findings at API boundary - #241

Open
Joncallim wants to merge 1 commit into
codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-corefrom
codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-api
Open

feat: validate mutual Compose findings at API boundary#241
Joncallim wants to merge 1 commit into
codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-corefrom
codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-api

Conversation

@Joncallim

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary\n- validate the closed mutual Compose advisory contract before browser publication\n- add canonical fixture coverage for both API aliases\n- fail closed to the neutral 502 for malformed reciprocal evidence\n\n## Verification\n- npm run typecheck\n- npm run test:api\n- npm run test:contracts\n- npm run build\n- npm run generate:contracts

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-02T17:02:09.648276Z 0a79e2c PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0a79e2c7ad

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines +375 to +376
return isCanonicalComposeEvidence(forward, finding.subjectRef)
&& isCanonicalComposeEvidence(reverse, finding.targetRef)

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Bind each Compose evidence ID to the opposite endpoint

When a malformed or compromised daemon returns two unrelated Compose observations, this accepts them as proof of a mutual dependency because it validates only each subjectRef; RuntimeEvidenceRef has no target field and its id is schema-checked only as a nonempty string. Production evidence IDs encode both source and target in docker_runtime_evidence (crates/dockermap-core/src/snapshot_runtime.rs), so the forward and reverse IDs must be validated against the expected A→B and B→A directions; otherwise /daemon/findings can publish an unsupported mutual-dependency conclusion.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@Joncallim
Joncallim force-pushed the codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-core branch from 134b356 to 156c8a4 Compare September 2, 2026 17:09
@Joncallim
Joncallim force-pushed the codex/69-compose-mutual-finding-api branch from 0a79e2c to 4c97424 Compare September 2, 2026 17:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant