Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

audit-augmentation

Connect static analysis results and human audit notes to a Trailmark code graph. Group findings by severity and compare them with input flow, impact, and privilege boundaries to prioritize investigation and understand findings in their code context.

OriginalShow the original description

Augments Trailmark code graphs with external audit findings from SARIF static analysis results, weAudit annotation files, and version-gated Trailmark 0.4.x binary-analysis graph exports. Maps findings to graph nodes by file and line overlap, creates severity-based subgraphs, and enables cross-referencing findings with pre-analysis data (blast radius, taint, etc.). Use when projecting SARIF results onto a code graph, overlaying weAudit annotations, importing binary graph findings, cross-referencing Semgrep, CodeQL, or binary-analysis findings with call graph data, or visualizing audit findings in the context of code structure.

See how to install

Good for

  • Connecting Semgrep or CodeQL results to code structure
  • Combining human audit notes with automated findings
  • Prioritizing findings using input flow and impact
  • Linking binary analysis exports to source code

Files included (4)

  • SKILL.md9.1 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml245 B
  • assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg3.0 KB
  • references/formats.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Audit Augmentation

Projects findings from external tools (SARIF) and human auditors (weAudit) onto Trailmark code graphs as annotations and subgraphs. Trailmark 0.4.0+ can also import an external binary-analysis graph JSON export via engine.augment_binary().

When to Use

  • Importing Semgrep, CodeQL, or other SARIF-producing tool results into a graph
  • Importing weAudit audit annotations into a graph
  • Importing binary-analysis graph data into a source graph (Trailmark 0.4.0+)
  • Cross-referencing static analysis findings with blast radius or taint data
  • Querying which functions have high-severity findings
  • Visualizing audit coverage alongside code structure
  • Preparing one SARIF or weAudit result for trailmark-finding-triage

When NOT to Use

  • Running static analysis tools (use semgrep/codeql directly, then import)
  • Building the code graph itself (use the trailmark skill)
  • Generating diagrams (use the diagramming-code skill after augmenting)

Rationalizations to Reject

RationalizationWhy It's WrongRequired Action
"The user only asked about SARIF, skip pre-analysis"Without pre-analysis, you can't cross-reference findings with blast radius or taintAlways run engine.preanalysis() before augmenting
"Unmatched findings don't matter"Unmatched findings may indicate parsing gaps or out-of-scope filesReport unmatched count and investigate if high
"One severity subgraph is enough"Different severities need different triage workflowsQuery all severity subgraphs, not just error
"SARIF results speak for themselves"Findings without graph context lack blast radius and taint reachabilityCross-reference with pre-analysis subgraphs
"weAudit and SARIF overlap, pick one"Human auditors and tools find different thingsImport both when available
"Tool isn't installed, I'll do it manually"Manual analysis misses what tooling catchesInstall trailmark first

Installation

MANDATORY: If uv run trailmark fails, install trailmark first:

uv tool install trailmark
# Python snippets: uv run --with trailmark python -   (a tool env is not importable)

Version Gate

SARIF and weAudit augmentation are v0.2-safe. Binary graph augmentation is Trailmark 0.4.0+ only. Before calling engine.augment_binary(), check:

if not hasattr(engine, "augment_binary"):
    raise RuntimeError("Binary augmentation requires Trailmark >= 0.4.0")

On Trailmark 0.5.0+, known links between source functions and imported binary or external endpoints can also be declared once in .trailmark/links.toml (see the main trailmark skill's Repository Links section) instead of being re-derived per session. Declared external endpoints materialize as proxy.external:<symbol> nodes on every parse.

Quick Start

CLI

# Augment with SARIF
uv run trailmark augment {targetDir} --sarif results.sarif

# Augment with weAudit
uv run trailmark augment {targetDir} --weaudit .vscode/alice.weaudit

# Both at once, output JSON
uv run trailmark augment {targetDir} \
    --sarif results.sarif \
    --weaudit .vscode/alice.weaudit \
    --json

Binary graph augmentation is programmatic in Trailmark 0.4.0+; do not invent a CLI flag if trailmark augment --help does not show one.

Programmatic API

from trailmark.query.api import QueryEngine

engine = QueryEngine.from_directory("{targetDir}", language="auto")

# Run pre-analysis first for cross-referencing
engine.preanalysis()

# Augment with SARIF
result = engine.augment_sarif("results.sarif")
# result: {matched_findings: 12, unmatched_findings: 3, subgraphs_created: [...]}

# Augment with weAudit
result = engine.augment_weaudit(".vscode/alice.weaudit")

# Augment with an external binary graph export (v0.4+)
if hasattr(engine, "augment_binary"):
    result = engine.augment_binary("binary_graph.json")

# Query findings
engine.findings()                                       # All findings
engine.subgraph("sarif:error")                          # High-severity SARIF
engine.subgraph("weaudit:high")                         # High-severity weAudit
engine.subgraph("sarif:semgrep")                        # By tool name
engine.annotations_of("function_name")                  # Per-node lookup

If auto-detection is wrong for the target, rerun with an explicit language or comma-separated list such as python,rust.

Workflow

Augmentation Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Build graph and run pre-analysis
- [ ] Step 2: Locate SARIF/weAudit/binary graph files
- [ ] Step 3: Run augmentation
- [ ] Step 4: Inspect results and subgraphs
- [ ] Step 5: Cross-reference with pre-analysis

Step 1: Build the graph and run pre-analysis for blast radius and taint context:

engine = QueryEngine.from_directory("{targetDir}", language="auto")
engine.preanalysis()

If auto-detection is wrong for the target, rerun with an explicit language or comma-separated list such as python,rust.

Step 2: Locate input files:

  • SARIF: Usually output by tools like semgrep --sarif -o results.sarif or codeql database analyze --format=sarif-latest
  • weAudit: Stored in .vscode/<username>.weaudit within the workspace
  • Binary graph (v0.4+): External JSON with artifact, functions, and calls fields. Trailmark imports this graph; it does not disassemble binaries itself.

Step 3: Run augmentation via engine.augment_sarif() or engine.augment_weaudit(). For binary graphs, run engine.augment_binary() only after the Version Gate succeeds. Check unmatched_findings in SARIF and weAudit results — these are findings whose file/line locations didn't overlap any parsed code unit.

Step 4: Query findings and subgraphs. Use engine.findings() to list all annotated nodes. Use engine.subgraph_names() to see available subgraphs.

Step 5: Cross-reference with pre-analysis data to prioritize:

  • Findings on tainted nodes: overlap sarif:error with tainted subgraph
  • Findings on high blast radius nodes: overlap with high_blast_radius
  • Findings on privilege boundaries: overlap with privilege_boundary

For one candidate finding that needs a reachability verdict or PoC handoff, continue with trailmark-finding-triage and use the augmented node as the bound candidate.

Annotation Format

Findings are stored as standard Trailmark annotations:

  • Kind: finding (tool-generated) or audit_note (human notes)
  • Source: sarif:<tool_name> or weaudit:<author>
  • Description: Compact single-line: [SEVERITY] rule-id: message (tool)

Subgraphs Created

SubgraphContents
sarif:errorNodes with SARIF error-level findings
sarif:warningNodes with SARIF warning-level findings
sarif:noteNodes with SARIF note-level findings
sarif:<tool>Nodes flagged by a specific tool
weaudit:highNodes with high-severity weAudit findings
weaudit:mediumNodes with medium-severity weAudit findings
weaudit:lowNodes with low-severity weAudit findings
weaudit:findingsAll weAudit findings (entryType=0)
weaudit:notesAll weAudit notes (entryType=1)
binary:<artifact>Binary function nodes imported from a v0.4+ binary graph

How Matching Works

Findings are matched to graph nodes by file path and line range overlap:

  1. Finding file path is normalized relative to the graph's root_path
  2. Nodes whose location.file_path matches AND whose line range overlaps are selected
  3. The tightest match (smallest span) is preferred
  4. If a finding's location doesn't overlap any node, it counts as unmatched

SARIF paths may be relative, absolute, or file:// URIs — all are handled. weAudit uses 0-indexed lines which are converted to 1-indexed automatically.

Binary graph imports create origin=binary function nodes, origin=proxy external proxy nodes for unresolved binary calls, and inferred corresponds_to edges when a binary function maps back to a source node. The expected JSON shape is intentionally small:

{
  "artifact": {"name": "libexample", "architecture": "x86_64", "sha256": "..."},
  "functions": [
    {"symbol": "parse_packet", "address": "0x401000",
     "source": {"file": "src/parser.c", "line": 42}}
  ],
  "calls": [
    {"source": "parse_packet", "target": "malloc", "confidence": "inferred"}
  ]
}

Supporting Documentation

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Build and test code with AddressSanitizer, a tool that detects invalid memory access during execution. Configure checks for C/C++ and unsafe Rust, investigate crash reports, and adjust settings for fuzzing, or testing with generated inputs.

  • Detect memory errors while fuzzing C/C++
  • Test unsafe Rust and calls to external libraries
  • Interpret an ASan crash report
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

aflpp

FreeSummary

Sets up AFL++ to test C/C++ programs with varied generated inputs, a technique called fuzzing. Covers running tests across CPU cores, monitoring progress, reducing input collections, and reproducing crashes for investigation.

  • Running C/C++ fuzzing across multiple CPU cores
  • Exploring further after libFuzzer progress stalls
  • Monitoring fuzzing progress and stability
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Audits GitHub Actions workflows that run AI coding agents. Traces how attacker-controlled content reaches prompts, checks permissions and sandbox settings, and reports evidence, severity, and fixes for prompt injection and related configuration risks.

  • Reviewing workflows that run AI coding agents
  • Tracing issue and PR content into agent prompts
  • Checking sandbox settings and user allowlists
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Reviews Algorand smart contracts written in TEAL or PyTeal for 11 vulnerability patterns. Produces a complete coverage table and findings with code references, severity ratings, and suggested fixes, with optional automated checks using Tealer.

  • Security checks before an Algorand contract audit
  • Reviewing TEAL or PyTeal transaction validation
  • Verifying fixes for reported vulnerabilities
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

atheris

FreeSummary

Set up Atheris to test Python code and C extensions with automatically varied inputs. It guides test harness creation, coverage tracking to explore more code, and AddressSanitizer setup for finding memory errors.

  • Fuzzing a Python package or parser
  • Investigating memory corruption in Python C extensions
  • Turning raw bytes into typed test arguments
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Build a documented understanding of unfamiliar code before a security audit. It records function assumptions, guarantees, dependencies, and open questions, producing a dossier and individual function notes to support later vulnerability analysis.

  • Understanding unfamiliar code before an audit
  • Mapping dependencies for threat modeling
  • Preparing background notes for an architecture review
trailofbits/skills7.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

See all skills by trailofbits

Report a problem with this skill