feat(enrichment): detect Resend API keys and Mapbox secret tokens in secret-scan

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Add high-confidence secret-scan rules for Resend API keys (re_ + base62) and Mapbox secret access tokens (sk.eyJ JWT-shaped tokens).
• Mapbox rule is distinct from Stripe sk_live_ / sk_test_ prefixes via the sk.eyJ anchor.

Motivation

Resend and Mapbox credentials are commonly leaked in env files and deployment configs. The secret-scan analyzer already covers many email/maps SaaS tokens but missed these formats.

Test plan

• Resend API key — positive match and truncated negative
• Mapbox secret token — positive match, not classified as Stripe secret key
• Fragment-based fixtures (no contiguous fake secrets in committed source)
• Full secret-scan.test.ts suite passes (59 tests)
• npm run build in review-enrichment/

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-04 23:52:12 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 73/100 · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• AI reviewers agree on a likely critical defect: review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:197: The Mapbox rule requires a later `.` via `\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{10,}` and the test fabricates `sk.eyJ... ....`, so real `sk.eyJ...` Mapbox access tokens without that second dot will not be reported
• change the rule/test to the actual token shape, e.g. `re: /\bsk\.eyJ[A-Za-z0-9_-]{24,}(?![A-Za-z0-9_-])/`, or explain with a real Mapbox fixture why the extra segment is required. — Resolve the flagged defect, or override if the AI reviewers are mistaken, then re-run the gate.

Review summary
The Resend detector is straightforward and covered by the new positive/truncated tests. The Mapbox detector is wired into the rule list, but the regex and tests model a two-segment token after `sk.` instead of the real Mapbox access-token shape, so the claimed coverage misses the production case it is meant to catch.

Blockers

• review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:197: The Mapbox rule requires a later `.` via `\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{10,}` and the test fabricates `sk.eyJ... ....`, so real `sk.eyJ...` Mapbox access tokens without that second dot will not be reported; change the rule/test to the actual token shape, e.g. `re: /\bsk\.eyJ[A-Za-z0-9_-]{24,}(?![A-Za-z0-9_-])/`, or explain with a real Mapbox fixture why the extra segment is required.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:480: Add a positive Mapbox fixture assembled from fragments that matches the documented production token shape, not just the regex shape, so this cannot regress into another fabricated-path test.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Why this is blocked

• review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:197: The Mapbox rule requires a later `.` via `\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{10,}` and the test fabricates `sk.eyJ... ....`, so real `sk.eyJ...` Mapbox access tokens without that second dot will not be reported; change the rule/test to the actual token shape, e.g. `re: /\bsk\.eyJ[A-Za-z0-9_-]{24,}(?![A-Za-z0-9_-])/`, or explain with a real Mapbox fixture why the extra segment is required.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 1 blocker	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 182 registered-repo PR(s), 102 merged, 9 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 182 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 182 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (AI reviewers agree on a likely critical defect: review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:197: The Mapbox rule requires a later `.` via `\.[A-Za-z0-9_-]{10,}` and the test fabricates `sk.eyJ... ....`, so real `sk.eyJ...` Mapbox access tokens without that second dot will not be reported; change the rule/test to the actual token shape, e.g. `re: /\bsk\.eyJ[A-Za-z0-9_-]{24,}(?![A-Za-z0-9_-])/`, or explain with a real Mapbox fixture why the extra segment is required.). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.