feat(enrichment): detect Baseten federated and Laminar API keys

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Add baseten_federated_api_key rule for Baseten sky_{prefix}.{secret} federated API keys (9–16 char prefix after sky_)
• Add laminar_api_key rule for Laminar lmnr_ project tokens
• Include positive, prefix boundary (8/9/16/17), truncation, and identifier-continuation negative tests

Test plan

• cd review-enrichment && npm run build && node --test test/secret-scan.test.ts (82 passing)

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]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-05 01:45:46 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 73/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
The change adds two focused high-confidence secret-scan rules and exercises the main positive, length-boundary, truncation, and suffix-continuation cases. The regexes are consistent with the surrounding rule style and the tests drive the real `scanPatch` path, so I do not see a reachable correctness break in the visible diff. The main gap is test completeness around leading identifier boundaries, especially because the PR description claims identifier-continuation coverage more broadly than the test actually proves.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: `review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:828` only tests trailing identifier continuation for Laminar/Baseten; add a leading-continuation case such as `prefix_sky_...` and `prefix_lmnr_...` so the `\b` boundary is explicitly covered too.
• nit: `review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:300` allows `=` anywhere in the Baseten secret body; if Baseten secrets are intended to be base64-like padding-only-at-end tokens, tighten this or leave a comment explaining that provider tokens may contain `=` internally.
• Add prefix-boundary assertions in `review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts` alongside the existing suffix-continuation checks so the tests match the PR description.
• If the Baseten secret alphabet is intentionally broader than strict base64 padding semantics, document that at `review-enrichment/src/analyzers/secret-scan.ts:300`; otherwise split the body/padding pattern to avoid overmatching malformed values.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	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: 216 registered-repo PR(s), 130 merged, 9 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 216 PR(s), 9 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured 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: 216 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 approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.