Skip to content

Improve first thought#291

Open
RedTanny wants to merge 10 commits into
RHEcosystemAppEng:mainfrom
RedTanny:improve-first-thought
Open

Improve first thought#291
RedTanny wants to merge 10 commits into
RHEcosystemAppEng:mainfrom
RedTanny:improve-first-thought

Conversation

@RedTanny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

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)

  • Prompt 1: CVE understanding (no patch required) — vulnerability type, component, ordered grep keywords
  • Prompt 2/3: Per-file patch analysis — functions/patterns per changed file, with token-budget batching for large patches
  • Result model: IntelGatheringResult aggregates per-file intel and converts back to VulnerabilityIntel for existing prompts/reports
  • Focused observations: when Source Grep targets a file, prepend that file’s intel into the observation context
  • New flow is now the sole intel path (dual-path flag removed)

Testing

Added unit coverage for the refactor and related empty/error tool handling:

  • test_file_change_summary.py — patch → per-file summaries / token estimates
  • test_cve_understanding_prompt.py — Prompt 1 formatting and keyword rules
  • test_patch_analysis_prompt.py — Prompt 2/3 formatting and functions summary helper
  • test_intel_gathering_result.py — lookup, aggregation, focused-context formatting
  • test_new_intel_flow.py — file priority + token-budget batch split
  • test_focused_observations.py — file filter extraction + focused context injection
  • test_check_empty_output.py — tool-error detection via status/prefix (not mid-content "error:")
  • tests/test_package_identifier.py — OSIDB affectedness / identify regression coverage

Bug fixes

  • Missing ADVISORY URL patterns / OSIDB in URL mining (b31b9d9): advisory/OSIDB URLs were missed when mining commit/advisory links for intel.
  • Weak hints continued into repo search (8ab9421): weak reference hints no longer keep searching repos; flow goes to the agent instead.
  • Noisy prompt regression (cafce28): removed extra prompt/intel fields that added noise and made the LLM less reliable.
  • “Patch file:” in report (47f8c01): dropped confusing “Patch file:” labeling from the checker report viewer.
  • Source Grep tool-call guidance (6c0576d): clarified grep tool instructions/schema so the LLM calls Source Grep correctly.
  • Identify regression (4132d2b): fixed PackageIdentifier affectedness regression after OSIDB support.

Also in this branch

  • OSIDB affectedness support in PackageIdentifier (55ac04d)
  • Stricter tool-error handling in observation/build agents so successful greps containing "error:" in source are not treated as tool failures

Test plan

  • Unit tests listed above
  • Local CVE run: Phoenix Initial_Intelligence_Gathering shows file_changes + CVE understanding
  • File-filtered Source Grep: observation span has focused_context_used=true
  • Spot-check known CVE verdicts for unexpected flips

RedTanny and others added 9 commits July 6, 2026 13:26
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>
@RedTanny
RedTanny requested review from TamarW0 and zvigrinberg July 13, 2026 07:40
@vbelouso

vbelouso commented Jul 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status Scan Engine Critical High Medium Low Total (0)
Code Security 0 0 0 0 0 issues

💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@zvigrinberg zvigrinberg added enhancement New feature or request optimization labels Jul 13, 2026

@zvigrinberg zvigrinberg left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RedTanny Thank you for the PR.
Please see my comments.

ReferenceHints,
AdvisoryContent,
GitSearchReport,
CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD_MIN,

@zvigrinberg zvigrinberg Jul 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RedTanny This ( CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD_MIN) is not being used at all.

Comment on lines +606 to +613
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,
)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RedTanny This is not being used at all..

What is being used is at

https://github.com/RHEcosystemAppEng/exploit-iq-agent/pull/291/changes#diff-7e2d863e8e84f6d82687b61d6ae8e02d8abb5b2592f130abcc7df14d362fad07R620-R627

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():

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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?

Comment on lines +618 to +636
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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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.

@TamarW0

TamarW0 commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

/retest

@exploit-iq-pac

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Caution

There are some errors in your PipelineRun template.

PipelineRun Error
vulnerability-analysis-on-pr CEL expression evaluation error: expression "event == \"pull_request\" &&\n!body.pull_request.draft &&\n(target_branch == \"main\" || target_branch == \"rh-aiq-main\") &&\n(\"src/**\".pathChanged() || \"metrics_lib/**\".pathChanged() || \"pyproject.toml\".pathChanged() || \"uv.lock\".pathChanged() || \"Dockerfile\".pathChanged() || \".dockerignore\".pathChanged())\n" failed to evaluate: no such key: pull_request

@TamarW0

TamarW0 commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

/test vulnerability-analysis-on-pr

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request optimization

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants