feat(enrichment): detect Exa and Mem0 API keys

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Add exa_api_key rule for Exa exa_ search API keys
• Add mem0_api_key rule for Mem0 platform (m0-) and self-hosted (m0sk_) tokens
• Include positive, truncation, and identifier-continuation negative tests

Test plan

• cd review-enrichment && npm run build && node --test test/secret-scan.test.ts (84 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 01:53:39 UTC}

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

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This adds two high-confidence secret-scan rules for Exa and Mem0 key prefixes and exercises the positive, truncation, and continuation cases in the analyzer tests. The regexes match the stated prefix/length contracts and the added tests drive the production `scanPatch` path, so I do not see a reachable correctness defect in the visible diff.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• nit: `review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:875` only checks `.` continuation for Mem0 even though the rule’s body allows `_` and `-`, so the test name overstates the identifier-continuation coverage for that rule.
• `review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:875`: either narrow the test name to the continuations actually covered, or add explicit Mem0 cases documenting why `_`/`-` suffixes are treated as part of the token rather than as identifier continuation.
• 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.