sarif-issue-reporter

Analyze SARIF files and generate security reports with CVSS scoring, exploitation scenarios, and remediation guidance. Use when reviewing static analysis results.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "sarif-issue-reporter" with this command: npx skills add igbuend/grimbard/igbuend-grimbard-sarif-issue-reporter

SARIF Issue Reporter

Analyze SARIF files and generate comprehensive security reports.

Target: $ARGUMENTS (path to SARIF file)

When to Use This Skill

  • Reviewing static analysis results from security scanners
  • Generating vulnerability reports with CVSS scoring
  • Validating SAST findings (true vs false positives)
  • Mapping vulnerabilities to compliance frameworks
  • Creating remediation guidance with code examples

Core Capabilities

CapabilityDescription
SARIF ParsingRead SARIF 2.1.0 format from any scanner
VerificationConfirm findings, identify false positives
CVSS ScoringCalculate scores with vector strings
Standards MappingOWASP, CWE, CAPEC, compliance frameworks
RemediationCode examples and implementation steps

Workflow

Phase 1: Parse SARIF

  1. Load SARIF file at $ARGUMENTS
  2. Extract tool metadata from runs[].tool.driver
  3. Get all results from runs[].results[]
  4. Categorize by severity level

Phase 2: Verify Each Issue

  1. Extract: Location, snippet, codeFlows, related locations
  2. Verify: Confirm issue exists, check for false positives, assess exploitability
  3. Enhance: Request additional code context if needed

Phase 3: Security Assessment

CVSS 3.1 Scoring - Calculate and justify each metric:

  • Attack Vector (AV): N/A/L/P
  • Attack Complexity (AC): L/H
  • Privileges Required (PR): N/L/H
  • User Interaction (UI): N/R
  • Scope (S): U/C
  • Impact (C/I/A): N/L/H each

Vector format: CVSS:3.1/AV:_/AC:_/PR:_/UI:_/S:_/C:_/I:_/A:_

Impact Analysis: Technical impact, business impact, exploitability, affected assets.

Phase 4: Standards Mapping

Map each verified issue to:

StandardAction
OWASP Top 10Identify category (A01-A10)
CWESpecific ID + parent/child
CAPECAttack patterns
CompliancePCI-DSS, GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, NIST

Reference: OWASP Top 10 | CWE | CAPEC

Phase 5: Report Generation

For each verified issue, generate this report structure:

## [ISSUE-XXX] {Title}

**Severity**: {Critical|High|Medium|Low} | **CVSS**: {Score} ({Vector}) | **Status**: Verified

### Summary
{2-3 sentence overview}

### Code Evidence
**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
```{language}
{code snippet with context}

Exploitation

Attack Vector: {Description} PoC: {Example exploit code or request} Prerequisites: {What attacker needs}

Impact

  • C/I/A: {Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability impacts}
  • Business: {Consequences}

Standards Mapping

  • OWASP: {Category}
  • CWE: CWE-{ID}
  • CAPEC: CAPEC-{ID}
  • Compliance: {PCI-DSS/GDPR/SOC2 requirements}

Security Patterns Violated

  • {Pattern}: Expected {X}, found {Y}

Remediation

Priority: {Level}

{Fix code}

Steps: {Implementation guidance}

Validation

{Test commands or verification steps}


## Implementation Steps

1. **Load SARIF** - Parse JSON at $ARGUMENTS path
2. **Extract Issues** - Get `runs[].results[]` array
3. **For Each Issue**:
   - Get location from `physicalLocation`
   - Read code context if snippet missing
   - Verify finding exists in source
   - Calculate CVSS with justification
   - Map to standards (OWASP/CWE/CAPEC)
   - Generate remediation code
4. **Output Report** - Markdown format (primary)

### Quality Checklist

Before finalizing each issue:
- [ ] CVSS score calculated with justification
- [ ] Code evidence with context
- [ ] Realistic exploitation scenario
- [ ] Security pattern identified
- [ ] OWASP/CWE/CAPEC mapped
- [ ] Working remediation code

**SARIF Reference**: [SARIF 2.1.0 Spec](https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.1.0/sarif-v2.1.0.html)

## Example Usage

User: Analyze results.sarif and report critical/high issues Claude:

  1. Parse SARIF → 2. Filter by severity → 3. Verify each finding
  2. Calculate CVSS → 5. Map to standards → 6. Generate report

## Best Practices

| Practice | Why |
|----------|-----|
| Always verify | SAST tools produce false positives |
| Realistic exploitation | Theoretical attacks aren't useful |
| Working remediation code | Not pseudo-code |
| Complete standards mapping | OWASP/CWE/CAPEC/Compliance |
| Sufficient code context | Understand the full picture |

## Executive Summary Template

```markdown
# Security Analysis Report
**Tool**: {name} | **Date**: {date} | **Scope**: {files scanned}

## Overview
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Total Issues | {n} |
| Verified | {n} |
| False Positives | {n} |

## Severity Distribution
Critical (9.0-10.0): {n} | High (7.0-8.9): {n} | Medium (4.0-6.9): {n} | Low (0.1-3.9): {n}

## Top Risks
1. {Issue} - CVSS {score}
2. {Issue} - CVSS {score}
3. {Issue} - CVSS {score}

Anti-Patterns

  • Reporting unverified issues
  • Generic remediation advice
  • Missing exploitation scenarios
  • Incomplete CVSS justification
  • Ignoring code context

Success Criteria

  • All critical/high issues verified
  • CVSS scores justified
  • Working exploitation examples
  • Production-ready remediation code
  • Complete standards mapping

References

Helper script available: scripts/sarif_helper.py

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Security

missing-security-headers-anti-pattern

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Security

oauth-security-anti-pattern

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Security

content-security-policy

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

tikz

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review