docs: add security follow-up tasks and plans#292
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @marcusquinn, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the project's security roadmap by documenting new, critical security tasks and outlining detailed plans for their implementation. It introduces strategies to improve the integrity of installation scripts and harden dashboard token storage, proactively addressing potential vulnerabilities and strengthening the overall security posture of the system. Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
WalkthroughFive backlog tasks (t104–t108) and two active plans (p013–p014) were added for script and token-storage hardening; the Active Plans index was updated. The loop helper script Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User as User
participant Script as FullLoopHelper.sh
participant LegacyFS as Legacy Loop-State Files
participant Resumer as cmd_resume
rect rgba(0,128,255,0.5)
User->>Script: invoke cmd_start / cmd_run_foreground
end
rect rgba(0,200,100,0.5)
Script->>LegacyFS: check for ralph-loop.local.state or .claude/ralph-loop.local.state
LegacyFS-->>Script: exists / not exists
end
alt legacy state exists
Script->>User: print legacy-mode warning and return (no auto-advance)
else no legacy state
Script->>Resumer: call cmd_resume (auto-advance)
Resumer-->>Script: resume operations
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
🤖 Augment PR SummarySummary: This PR documents upcoming security follow-up work by adding new backlog items and formal plan entries. Changes:
Technical Notes: Plans focus on reducing supply-chain risk (eliminating 🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎 |
![augmentcode[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1027498?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds several important security-related tasks to the backlog and provides detailed execution plans for two of them: hardening the install script integrity and securing dashboard token storage. The new tasks and plans are well-defined, follow the project's documentation standards, and address critical security areas. My review includes a couple of suggestions to make the security plans even more comprehensive by considering additional defense-in-depth measures.
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 1: Inventory all `curl|sh` usages and vendor verification options ~45m | ||
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 2: Replace with download → verify → execute flow ~2h | ||
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 3: Add fallback behavior and clear error messages ~45m | ||
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 4: Update docs/tests and verify behavior ~30m |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The plan to replace curl | sh is a great security improvement. To make the plan even more robust, consider explicitly prioritizing cryptographic signature verification (e.g., GPG/PGP) over simple checksums where available. While checksums ensure integrity against download corruption, signatures also verify authenticity, protecting against a compromised server providing both a malicious script and a matching malicious checksum.
You could add this to Phase 1: Inventory all curl|sh usages and vendor verification options (preferring signatures over checksums).
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 1: Trace token flow and identify all storage/read paths ~45m | ||
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 2: Migrate to session/memory storage and update auth flow ~1.5h | ||
| - [ ] (2026-02-03) Phase 3: Add reset/clear UI flow and verify behavior ~45m |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an excellent plan for hardening token storage. Moving from localStorage to session or in-memory storage is a great step. To further enhance security and provide defense-in-depth against XSS, consider adding a task to this plan to review and enforce a strict Content Security Policy (CSP). A strong CSP can prevent the execution of unauthorized scripts, which is the root cause of XSS attacks that could steal tokens even from sessionStorage.
🔍 Code Quality Report�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Latest Quality Status: �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Recent monitoring activity: 📈 Current Quality Metrics
Generated on: Tue Feb 3 02:00:15 UTC 2026 Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@TODO.md`:
- Around line 55-59: Add the five new tasks (t104, t105, t106, t107, t108) into
the TOON backlog block and update the backlog header count from 52 to 57 so the
<!--TOON:backlog[52]--> block matches the new task list; ensure the block
content includes the exact task lines for t104–t108 (with their tags and links)
and also update any internal count/summary references inside that same TOON
backlog block so automation (TOON/beads) stays consistent.
In `@todo/PLANS.md`:
- Around line 24-115: The TOON plan IDs p013 and p014 are duplicated; update the
new plans "Install Script Integrity Hardening" and "Dashboard Token Storage
Hardening" to use unique, unused plan IDs (e.g. pick next free IDs not already
assigned to Multi‑Agent Orchestration or Document Extraction) and update any
embedded TOON tags (the <!--TOON:plan{...}--> entries) to match; also correct
the active_plans array/count (active_plans[11] currently lists 12 entries) so
the index/count matches the actual number of entries and ensure any referenced
milestone or decision IDs inside those plan blocks (e.g., m064–m070) remain
consistent with the new plan IDs.
|
🔍 Code Quality Report�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Latest Quality Status: �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Recent monitoring activity: 📈 Current Quality Metrics
Generated on: Tue Feb 3 02:25:04 UTC 2026 Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring |
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit