Add "Code Security Review" check

[continue]

Adds the Code Security Review check to this repository.

This check will be synced from .continue/checks/code-security-review.md and can be customized by editing the file directly.

---

Opened via Continue Hub

---

Summary by cubic

Adds an automated Code Security Review that runs on every PR. It audits changes for OWASP Top 10 risks, posts a single report, and auto-fixes critical/high issues when safe.

• New Features
  • Scans for OWASP Top 10 plus XSS, CSRF, security headers, cookies, and input validation.
  • Classifies findings by severity and applies safe fixes for SQLi, XSS, hardcoded secrets, missing auth, and basic validation.
  • Posts/updates one PR comment with a summary, applied fixes, and next steps using an HTML marker.
  • Config lives in .continue/checks/code-security-review.md and can be customized.

^{Written for commit 629fa05. Summary will update on new commits.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
adk-docs	Error		May 8, 2026 6:36am

[cr-gpt]

Seems you are using me but didn't get OPENAI_API_KEY seted in Variables/Secrets for this repo. you could follow readme for more information

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

The PR introduces a detailed configuration for an automated Code Security Review agent focusing on OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities. While the documentation and patterns are well-defined, there is a significant implementation gap: the PR does not include the CI/CD workflow files (e.g., GitHub Actions) required to execute these checks.

Codacy analysis indicates the file is up to standards, but several logic issues in the instructions could lead the agent to suggest invalid or incomplete fixes. Specifically, the guidance for SQL injection does not account for non-parameterizable identifiers, and the hardcoded secrets section overlooks the necessity of secret rotation after exposure in git history. Additionally, all recommended test scenarios for validating the agent's detection capabilities are currently missing.

About this PR

• The PR adds a markdown configuration file but does not include any CI/CD workflow files (e.g., GitHub Actions) or integration logic to actually execute these security checks. This configuration remains dormant until an orchestration layer is added.

Test suggestions

• Detect SQL injection vulnerabilities and apply parameterized query fixes.
• Identify hardcoded API keys and secrets and migrate them to environment variables.
• Verify identification of XSS vulnerabilities in templates and React code.
• Ensure the agent correctly identifies missing authentication on sensitive endpoints.
• Verify that the agent updates an existing PR comment rather than creating duplicates.

Prompt proposal for missing tests

Consider implementing these tests if applicable:
1. Detect SQL injection vulnerabilities and apply parameterized query fixes.
2. Identify hardcoded API keys and secrets and migrate them to environment variables.
3. Verify identification of XSS vulnerabilities in templates and React code.
4. Ensure the agent correctly identifies missing authentication on sensitive endpoints.
5. Verify that the agent updates an existing PR comment rather than creating duplicates.

Low confidence findings

• The 'Automatic Fixes' section assumes specific library syntax (e.g., Node.js/Express/PostgreSQL). If the repository uses different languages or frameworks, these automated fix templates may generate incompatible code.

_{TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}

[codacy-production]

_{🟡 MEDIUM RISK}

Note that SQL identifiers (table or column names) cannot be handled by standard parameterized queries. The instructions should distinguish between data parameterization and identifier validation. Update the SQL Injection section to explicitly mention that database identifiers like table names cannot be parameterized and should be validated against an allow-list or escaped properly.

[codacy-production]

_{🟡 MEDIUM RISK}

Suggestion: Moving a hardcoded secret to an environment variable does not invalidate the secret's presence in the repository's history. The instructions should include a recommendation to rotate any discovered secrets immediately as they are now part of the git history.

[codacy-production]

_{⚪ LOW RISK}

Nitpick: Remove the unnecessary empty code block and trailing whitespace at the end of the file to ensure clean markdown formatting.

Suggested change

```