Improve first thought#291
Conversation
… and llm didn't follow prompt less accurate
Implements issues 01-06 of intel gathering refactor: - FileChangeSummary model and extraction (01) - file_changes span output (02) - CVE_UNDERSTANDING_PROMPT (03) - PATCH_ANALYSIS_PROMPT (04) - IntelGatheringResult object (05) - Dual-path intel gathering with enable_new_intel_flow config (06) Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.
💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse. |
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
zvigrinberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RedTanny Thank you for the PR.
Please see my comments.
| ReferenceHints, | ||
| AdvisoryContent, | ||
| GitSearchReport, | ||
| CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD_MIN, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RedTanny This ( CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD_MIN) is not being used at all.
| prompt = PATCH_ANALYSIS_PROMPT.format( | ||
| vuln_id=vuln_id, | ||
| vulnerability_type=result.cve_understanding.vulnerability_type if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| affected_component=result.cve_understanding.affected_component if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| root_cause=result.cve_understanding.root_cause if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| functions_touched_summary=functions_summary, | ||
| patch_content=patch_content, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RedTanny This is not being used at all..
What is being used is at
So it's either a duplication with redundant var , or worse even a bug.
|
|
||
| basename = Path(file_path).name.lower() | ||
| for fs in self.file_summaries: | ||
| if basename in fs.file_path.lower(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RedTanny This is not safe enough, as for example both reasonable.c and sonable.c will match, while it's obvious these are two different files.
another example log.c prelog.c.
Maybe full check after transorming both sides to lowercases?
| for fs in files: | ||
| # Per-file invocation to get structured output per file | ||
| file_prompt = PATCH_ANALYSIS_PROMPT.format( | ||
| vuln_id=vuln_id, | ||
| vulnerability_type=result.cve_understanding.vulnerability_type if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| affected_component=result.cve_understanding.affected_component if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| root_cause=result.cve_understanding.root_cause if result.cve_understanding else "", | ||
| functions_touched_summary=format_functions_touched_summary([fs]), | ||
| patch_content=_format_patch_content_for_files(parsed_patch, [fs]), | ||
| ) | ||
| file_intel: PerFileIntel = await per_file_llm.ainvoke([SystemMessage(content=file_prompt)]) | ||
| file_intel.file_path = fs.file_path # Ensure path is set | ||
| results.append(file_intel) | ||
|
|
||
| span.set_output({ | ||
| "files_analyzed": len(results), | ||
| "files": [r.file_path for r in results], | ||
| }) | ||
| return results |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RedTanny Why running for each file LLM linearly ?
All files are independent, right?
So better IMO to create tasks for all files, and then run all tasks concurrently using asyncio.gather), it will improve performance and will make it much more rapid.
|
/retest |
|
Caution There are some errors in your PipelineRun template.
|
|
/test vulnerability-analysis-on-pr |
Summary
Refactors L1 intel gathering so the checker extracts CVE understanding and patch intel separately (per-file), then feeds focused context into Source Grep observations. Also includes related checker bugfixes and OSIDB identify improvements from this branch.
Why
The old single-prompt intel extraction mixed CVE narrative with full-patch analysis, which hurt keyword quality on large patches and gave observations little file-specific guidance. Splitting the flow improves search targeting and keeps large patches within the context budget.
High-level feature (intel refactor)
IntelGatheringResultaggregates per-file intel and converts back toVulnerabilityIntelfor existing prompts/reportsTesting
Added unit coverage for the refactor and related empty/error tool handling:
test_file_change_summary.py— patch → per-file summaries / token estimatestest_cve_understanding_prompt.py— Prompt 1 formatting and keyword rulestest_patch_analysis_prompt.py— Prompt 2/3 formatting and functions summary helpertest_intel_gathering_result.py— lookup, aggregation, focused-context formattingtest_new_intel_flow.py— file priority + token-budget batch splittest_focused_observations.py— file filter extraction + focused context injectiontest_check_empty_output.py— tool-error detection via status/prefix (not mid-content"error:")tests/test_package_identifier.py— OSIDB affectedness / identify regression coverageBug fixes
b31b9d9): advisory/OSIDB URLs were missed when mining commit/advisory links for intel.8ab9421): weak reference hints no longer keep searching repos; flow goes to the agent instead.cafce28): removed extra prompt/intel fields that added noise and made the LLM less reliable.47f8c01): dropped confusing “Patch file:” labeling from the checker report viewer.6c0576d): clarified grep tool instructions/schema so the LLM calls Source Grep correctly.4132d2b): fixed PackageIdentifier affectedness regression after OSIDB support.Also in this branch
PackageIdentifier(55ac04d)"error:"in source are not treated as tool failuresTest plan
Initial_Intelligence_Gatheringshowsfile_changes+ CVE understandingfocused_context_used=true