mantis-review
mantis-review 是一个独立的代码审查验证技能,通过对抗性视角逐条复核去重后的缺陷发现,并回到真实源码逐行核验,剔除误报与噪声,最终把校验结论(状态、理由、复现提示)写回磁盘。适合自动化安全审计或静态扫描之后的结果收敛阶段,帮助团队把大量可疑告警压缩成少量可信问题。
npx skills add https://github.com/google/mantis --skill mantis-reviewBefore / After 效果对比
2 组扫描工具吐出上百条缺陷告警,开发者只能凭肉眼逐条翻代码判断真假,大量时间耗在确认根本不存在的风险上。
此技能以对抗性视角逐条回源码核验,默认把每条发现当作误报去反驳,只保留能被代码证实的问题,并写回状态与理由。
Reviewer (/mantis-review)
System Goal
Independent Validator. Reviews consolidated findings against active source code to verify validity and filter out noise and false positives.
Command Definition
- Command:
/mantis-review - Description: Independently reviews findings and filters out false positives.
Input/Output Contract
- Reads:
workspace/findings/(finding JSON files, including each finding's optionaldiscovery_commitprovenance stamp).workspace/.mantis_state.json(current looppass_number; and, when present,active_snapshot={root, snapshot_id, snapshot_pinned}for snapshot provenance).- Invocation args when passed by the orchestrator:
--snapshot_root,--snapshot_id,--state_root(and, rarely,--target_root). - Target source code files at the
code_pathspaths/lines, read under the resolvedCODE_ROOT(the pinned snapshot root — see Instructions Step 0 / Block A), never the live tree when a snapshot is pinned.
- Writes:
- Updates findings on disk in-place (sets
"status","reasoning","repro_hints","triage_checklist", and appends history). - Writes helper script
workspace/helpers/append_review.py.
- Updates findings on disk in-place (sets
- Preconditions:
workspace/findings/exists with finding files.- Target source code files exist.
- Idempotency Guarantee:
- Modifies finding files in-place using the helper script
append_review.py, which MUST carry# MANTIS_HELPER_VERSION = 2as its first line; regenerate the helper if that marker is absent or a different integer (see Instructions step 5). - Idempotency key is (pass_number, snapshot). Before (re)writing a
finding, scan its
historyarray:- SNAPSHOT MODE OFF (neither
--snapshot_idwas passed NOR isactive_snapshotreadable in state): SKIP the review update iff a"stage": "reviewer"entry already exists for the currentpass_number(byte-for-byte today's behavior). - SNAPSHOT MODE ON: SKIP the review update iff a
"stage": "reviewer"entry exists whosepass_numberequals the current pass AND whosesnapshotequalsSNAPSHOT_ID. A reviewer entry that lackssnapshot(legacy) or carries a differentsnapshotcounts as UNKNOWN → RE-REVIEW (do NOT skip), so a finding reviewed under the old skill is re-grounded against the current pinned snapshot.
- SNAPSHOT MODE OFF (neither
- Modifies finding files in-place using the helper script
Instructions
Read and evaluate the deduplicated findings against the actual source code of the repository. Assume every finding is a false positive by default. Your job is to disprove the finding using an adversarial stance. Evaluate the claim based ONLY on the code and the raw claim itself. Explicitly ignore the original finder's prose reasoning and justification, as they may be hallucinated.
Execute your validation as follows:
Step 0 — Locator Resolution & Snapshot Provenance Gate (do this FIRST, before reading any finding's code):
0a. Resolve where to read code. Block A — Locator Resolution here:
LOCATOR RESOLUTION (before reading ANY target code or artifact):
0. ROLE: If this skill NEVER reads target source (report, calibrate, reflect),
you are a FINDINGS-ONLY stage: skip steps 2-6; still read active_snapshot from
state for provenance/annotation; NEVER stop merely because a code root is unset.
1. Determine CODE_ROOT, in this priority order:
a. If --target_root is passed on THIS invocation, CODE_ROOT = --target_root.
It is AUTHORITATIVE and OVERRIDES SNAPSHOT_ROOT and the state fallback
(used when a caller hands you a prepared tree, e.g. a patched shadow).
b. Else if --snapshot_root (or SNAPSHOT_ROOT) is passed, use it.
c. Else read state_root/workspace/.mantis_state.json (state_root from
--state_root if passed, else ./workspace/... relative to the current dir)
-> active_snapshot.root / .snapshot_id / .snapshot_pinned.
d. Else (no arg AND no readable active_snapshot): CODE_ROOT = current directory,
treat snapshot_pinned = false (MODE-OFF). Do NOT stop.
2. SENTINEL CHECK (only if snapshot_pinned is true AND you did NOT take path 1a):
verify CODE_ROOT/.mantis_snapshot_id exists and equals SNAPSHOT_ID. If missing
or different -> STOP "snapshot sentinel mismatch". (A --target_root tree (1a) is
deliberately mutated and is sentinel-EXEMPT.)
3. PATH FIELDS:
- SNAPSHOT-RELATIVE (read under CODE_ROOT): code_paths entries; plan target_files
that are file paths. Strip ONLY a trailing ":<digits>". A code_paths entry
containing "://" is a URL/endpoint, NOT a file read. A code_paths entry that is
NOT of the form <existing-path>:<integer> is a non-source LOCATOR
(symbol/offset/endpoint): only check that the artifact/symbol exists; skip ALL
line-range and line-existence logic.
- STATE-RELATIVE (read/write under state_root/workspace, NEVER prefix CODE_ROOT):
kb_references, repro_file_path, reattack_file_path, helper scripts, report
files, and all state/findings JSON.
4. Never WRITE under CODE_ROOT when snapshot_pinned is true. Any command that
compiles, generates, or writes artifacts MUST run in a PRIVATE SHADOW copy
(mktemp -d from CODE_ROOT), never with cwd=CODE_ROOT. Read-only inspection may
cd into CODE_ROOT.
5. VCS-METADATA CARVE-OUT: history-log extraction and any VCS diff/blame command
run in the LIVE repository root (which still has .git/.hg/.repo), NOT CODE_ROOT
(the snapshot copy strips VCS metadata). Do NOT stop merely because CODE_ROOT
lacks .git/.hg/.repo.
6. Every shell command uses ABSOLUTE paths and sets its own working directory on
that call. Do NOT assume the working directory persists between calls.
The reviewer READS target source, so it is NOT a findings-only stage: run all of
Block A steps 1-6. CODE_ROOT is the pinned snapshot root you will read every
code_paths entry under. Per Block A step 3, a code_paths entry containing
:// is a URL (existence check only), and any entry not of the form
<existing-path>:<integer> is a non-source locator (check the artifact/symbol
exists; skip all line-existence logic). Never STOP merely because CODE_ROOT
lacks .git/.hg (Block A step 5).
[!NOTE] CURRENT-PASS CHECK (defensive; the binding guarantee is on the harness per
mantis-pipeline-adapterScenario 2): ifactive_snapshotis present ANDactive_snapshot.pass != state.pass_number, treat the snapshot as STALE for this pass — STOP "stale active_snapshot: pass mismatch" or degrade as HALT (snapshot_pinnedeffectively false: no authoritative verdicts, Block B NOT_MATCHED, reproducenot_attempted). This catches a custom harness that preservedactive_snapshotacross the Stage 15 pass increment without re-pinning. The reference meta-agent re-pins every pass, so this check never fires there. Block B itself cannot detect this (it issnapshot_id-only, notpass-aware).
0b. Determine SNAPSHOT MODE (once, before touching findings): - SNAPSHOT
MODE is OFF iff --snapshot_id was NOT passed on this invocation AND
workspace/.mantis_state.json has no readable active_snapshot. This is a
legacy / non-sync run: do NOT run the Snapshot Provenance Gate below; review
EVERY finding with steps 1-5 exactly as before. - Otherwise SNAPSHOT MODE is
ON. From Block A you now hold SNAPSHOT_ID and snapshot_pinned. Apply the
Snapshot Provenance Gate (0c) to every finding.
0c. Snapshot Provenance Gate (SNAPSHOT MODE ON only). After Step 1 loads the findings, apply the match check to EACH finding F via Block B — Snapshot Match Check, applied to F:
SNAPSHOT MATCH CHECK for finding F (decides MATCHED vs NOT_MATCHED):
1. If snapshot_pinned is false -> NOT_MATCHED. Stop.
2. Read F.discovery_commit:
- missing OR empty OR the literal "MIXED" -> NOT_MATCHED.
- not exactly equal to SNAPSHOT_ID -> NOT_MATCHED.
- exactly equal to SNAPSHOT_ID -> MATCHED.
There is no other route to MATCHED; never fuzzy-compare. The global "default the
field and proceed" backward-compat rule does NOT apply to discovery_commit:
absent = NOT_MATCHED. (There is NO separate "dirty" gate: a dirty tree's
SNAPSHOT_ID already embeds the working-tree content hash, so within-pass findings
MATCH and cross-pass bare-commit findings do not.)
Then, using the idempotency rule (Input/Output Contract → Idempotency Guarantee) to avoid double-writes:
- MATCHED → F is grounded in the current pinned snapshot. Proceed to steps 2-5 (the full 13-rule review) for F.
- NOT_MATCHED (includes:
snapshot_pinnedfalse / HALT / live-endpoint pass;discovery_commitmissing, empty, or the literalMIXED; ordiscovery_commit != SNAPSHOT_ID) → F was discovered against a different (or absent/unpinned) snapshot; itscode_pathsline numbers may no longer point at the same code. DO NOT run the 13 rules on F. DO NOT mark it FALSE_POSITIVE. Finalize F as a driftNEEDS_RESEARCHvia the helper (step 5), writing EXACTLY:"status": "NEEDS_RESEARCH""reasoning":"Snapshot drift: finding discovered against snapshot <F.discovery_commit or 'unknown'>, which does not match the current pinned snapshot <SNAPSHOT_ID>. Not re-validated this pass; routed to re-research."- omit
"repro_hints"(and, if F carried stalerepro_hintsfrom a prior pass, leave them — they are ignored downstream because status is not VALID/PROVISIONALLY_VALID). "triage_checklist": all 13 constraints set toUNKNOWN(paste the object below verbatim). This object is REQUIRED: appending areviewerhistory entry makestriage_checklistmandatory on a non-chain finding (schema.jsonlines 365-398), and for aNEEDS_RESEARCHfinding every entry MUST avoidFAIL/passes:false(schema.jsonlines 418-470). Settingensure_source_code_coherenceandverify_attacker_control_of_sourcetoUNKNOWN(neverFAIL) is the whole point: a line/path mismatch caused by DRIFT is NOT evidence of hallucination, so Rules 12/13 must NOT fire on it.- append the
reviewer"history"entry (with"snapshot", per step 5 / the history JSON below). Then STOP processing F — skip steps 2-5 for it.
Drift triage_checklist (paste verbatim; all 13 keys, all UNKNOWN):
{
"ignore_hypothetical_misuse": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"ignore_missing_hygiene": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"require_strict_reproducibility": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"avoid_pedantic_linting": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"no_security_flaw_stretching": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"evaluate_questionable_file_paths": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"ignore_resource_exhaustion_dos": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"intrinsic_security_flaws": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"verify_mitigations_pragmatically": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"refine_code_paths_strictly": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"ignore_simd_vector_padding": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: not re-validated against the current pinned snapshot" },
"ensure_source_code_coherence": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: line/path mismatch may be caused by drift, not hallucination; not re-validated" },
"verify_attacker_control_of_source": { "outcome": "UNKNOWN", "reason": "snapshot drift: trust-boundary path not re-traced against the current pinned snapshot" }
}
Findings finalized as drift NEEDS_RESEARCH in Step 0c are DONE — do not
process them again in steps 2-5. Only MATCHED findings (SNAPSHOT MODE ON) or all
findings (SNAPSHOT MODE OFF) flow into steps 2-5 below.
-
Load Clustered Findings: Read the JSON files in the
workspace/findings/directory. If the directory is empty or missing, notify the user. -
Source Code Inspection: For each finding that reached this step (in SNAPSHOT MODE ON, only findings that were MATCHED in Step 0c; findings finalized there as drift
NEEDS_RESEARCHare already done and are skipped), read the file underCODE_ROOT(the pinned snapshot root resolved in Step 0 / Block A — resolve everycode_pathspath relative toCODE_ROOT, never the live tree) to inspect the exact files and line numbers listed incode_pathsand confirm the finding is grounded in the actual snapshot state. Do not make assumptions about the validity of a path without inspecting the source code first. -
Strict Validation Filtering (Apply the 13 Negative Constraints): Evaluate each finding against these strict criteria. Mark a finding as FALSE_POSITIVE if it violates any of the following rules:
- Ignore Hypothetical Misuse: Do not flag security flaws that rely on a calling API hypothetically misusing a function, writing bad fallback logic, or sending invalid parameters if the function itself behaves safely.
- Ignore Missing Hygiene / Defense-In-Depth: Do not report missing HTTP
security headers (e.g.,
X-Content-Type-Options), missing authentication on local-only test functions, or hardcoded mock databases as security flaws. - Require Strict Reproducibility: Only mark a finding as VALID if a direct, unambiguous, and triggerable flaw exists within the boundaries of the code logic. If the finding is extremely fragile (e.g., relies on unstable timing that cannot be automated or brute-forced, or requires unrealistic environmental conditions to trigger), mark it as FALSE_POSITIVE. Note on Race Conditions: Do NOT dismiss race conditions or timing bugs simply because they have a low success probability (e.g., 1 in a million), provided the attack path can be automated and repeatedly attempted by an attacker to eventually trigger the exploit.
- Avoid Pedantic Linting: If the code uses standard safe libraries
(such as
json.loads, parameterised SQL queries, or secure standard library hashes) but lacks extreme paranoia, mark it as FALSE_POSITIVE. - **No
...
用户评价 (0)
发表评价
暂无评价
统计数据
用户评分
为此 Skill 评分