docs(readme): first-impression rewrite (banner, demo, verification) + v1.6.0 currency#14
Merged
Conversation
- Bump the pre-commit `rev` and the binary-download example to v1.6.0 (latest). - Architecture diagram output node now lists all formats (JSON / SARIF / CSV / Table / GitHub) instead of just three. - Note the `github` output format (inline PR annotations) in the CI/CD section. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)Reviewer's GuideDocumentation-only README refresh for v1.6.0, updating versioned examples, reflecting the new GitHub/table output formats, and clarifying how to use the GitHub output in CI/CD. Flow diagram for updated Leakwatch output formatsflowchart LR
Sources --> Engine
Engine --> Verify
Verify --> Output_JSON["JSON"]
Verify --> Output_SARIF["SARIF"]
Verify --> Output_CSV["CSV"]
Verify --> Output_Table["Table"]
Verify --> Output_GitHub["GitHub"]
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've left some high level feedback:
- Consider making the binary download example version-agnostic (e.g. using
X.Y.Zorlatest) to avoid needing to update the README on every release.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- Consider making the binary download example version-agnostic (e.g. using `X.Y.Z` or `latest`) to avoid needing to update the README on every release.Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughRewrites and reorganizes README content (intro, Quick Start, detectors, outputs, architecture, security, links), advances roadmap phases/versions and updates Release Plan, and adds a new docs banner HTML asset. ChangesREADME rewrite and documentation refresh
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![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 updates the documentation to version 1.6.0, adds instructions for using GitHub inline annotations and SARIF formats, and updates the architecture diagram to include new output formats. Feedback was provided to improve terminology consistency by removing the hyphen from "pull request" and renaming a link to accurately reflect the broad scope of the CI/CD integration guide.
| sarif-upload: true | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Use `format: github` for inline pull-request annotations, or `format: sarif` with `sarif-upload: true` to surface findings as Code Scanning alerts. See the [GitHub Action guide](docs/guides/ci-cd-integration.md) for all inputs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The term "pull-request" is typically written without a hyphen as "pull request" when used as a noun phrase. For consistency with GitHub's official terminology and the rest of the documentation, it is recommended to remove the hyphen. Additionally, the link text "GitHub Action guide" is slightly narrow as the linked document covers multiple CI/CD platforms including GitLab, Jenkins, and pre-commit.
Suggested change
| Use `format: github` for inline pull-request annotations, or `format: sarif` with `sarif-upload: true` to surface findings as Code Scanning alerts. See the [GitHub Action guide](docs/guides/ci-cd-integration.md) for all inputs. | |
| Use `format: github` for inline pull request annotations, or `format: sarif` with `sarif-upload: true` to surface findings as Code Scanning alerts. See the [CI/CD Integration guide](docs/guides/ci-cd-integration.md) for all inputs. |
…talog
Reworked the README for repo + Marketplace first impression:
- Brand banner (rendered from the site's og.svg) + sharper tagline + release badge.
- "What is Leakwatch?" with a real terminal-output demo near the top.
- Crisp feature list; prominent GitHub Action section (Marketplace audience) with
exit codes; a verification ("is it still live?") section.
- Detector catalog condensed to a category summary with the full 63-row table in
a <details>; output-formats table includes the github format.
- Added a Security/secret-safety note; condensed the docs link section; nav links.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
cemililik
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Line 101: Update the "Exit codes" description to match the action's behavior:
state that exit code 0 means no findings, 1 means findings reported, and any
exit code >=2 is treated as a hard error (rather than only 2), so CI gating will
fail for any exit code of 2 or higher; edit the "Exit codes (used for CI
gating)" line accordingly to reflect "any exit code >=2" as error.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: c974f925-8bb7-4b43-9a7d-bd99dfaad820
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
docs/assets/banner.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
README.md
|
|
||
| # Scan multiple repos in parallel | ||
| leakwatch scan repos https://github.com/org/repo1.git https://github.com/org/repo2.git --parallel 5 | ||
| Exit codes (used for CI gating): **`0`** no findings · **`1`** findings reported · **`2`** error. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix exit-code semantics to match action behavior.
Line 101 says 2 means error, but the action treats any exit code >=2 as a hard error. Please update this line to avoid CI-gating confusion.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@README.md` at line 101, Update the "Exit codes" description to match the
action's behavior: state that exit code 0 means no findings, 1 means findings
reported, and any exit code >=2 is treated as a hard error (rather than only 2),
so CI gating will fail for any exit code of 2 or higher; edit the "Exit codes
(used for CI gating)" line accordingly to reflect "any exit code >=2" as error.
Re-render the banner from a self-contained HTML source using the real brand fonts (Space Grotesk 700 + JetBrains Mono 400/700) instead of fallback fonts, with a visible striped redaction bar. Strip decorative emoji from headings and feature bullets, and fix the resulting nav/inline anchors (#-quick-start -> #quick-start, etc.). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
v1.6.0 shipped the GitHub Marketplace Action, the github output format, and config wiring (not the planned Phase 9 detection-accuracy work). Record it as completed Phase 8.5 with its own highlights, and shift every planned phase up one version (Phase 9 -> v1.7.0 ... Phase 14 -> v1.12.0) across the status table, gantt chart, phase headers/exit criteria, and the release plan. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/05-ROADMAP.md`:
- Around line 3-6: The document metadata contains inconsistent dates: "Date:
2026-04-09" and "Last Updated: 2026-05-25" for Document Version 7.1; update the
Date field to match the Last Updated value (or vice versa if you prefer) so both
"Date" and "Last Updated" are identical for "Document Version: 7.1" to avoid
version-history confusion—modify the Date line in the header to "2026-05-25" (or
change Last Updated to "2026-04-09" if that's the intended authoritative date).
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 28a89e0e-29f8-4862-aa16-55beb3bda24c
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
docs/assets/banner.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
README.mddocs/05-ROADMAP.mddocs/assets/banner.html
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- docs/assets/banner.html
Comment on lines
+3
to
+6
| > **Document Version:** 7.1 | ||
| > **Date:** 2026-04-09 | ||
| > **Status:** Approved | ||
| > **Last Updated:** 2026-05-24 | ||
| > **Last Updated:** 2026-05-25 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Document metadata dates are inconsistent.
Line 4 (Date: 2026-04-09) conflicts with Line 6 (Last Updated: 2026-05-25) after the v7.1 bump. Align these dates to avoid version-history confusion.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/05-ROADMAP.md` around lines 3 - 6, The document metadata contains
inconsistent dates: "Date: 2026-04-09" and "Last Updated: 2026-05-25" for
Document Version 7.1; update the Date field to match the Last Updated value (or
vice versa if you prefer) so both "Date" and "Last Updated" are identical for
"Document Version: 7.1" to avoid version-history confusion—modify the Date line
in the header to "2026-05-25" (or change Last Updated to "2026-04-09" if that's
the intended authoritative date).
The redaction wordplay ("Some secrets shouldn't be [redacted]") relied on
a hover/animation reveal that only works on the website — in a static
README PNG the key word was simply invisible, leaving an incomplete
sentence. Replace it with a direct headline ("Find leaked secrets before
attackers do."), a subtitle that names the scanned surfaces, and a thin
brand accent rule in place of the gimmicky CLASSIFIED bar.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Consistency with the rest of the README and GitHub's terminology (review nit from gemini-code-assist on PR #14). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The detector/verifier/source/format counts were duplicated by hand across the README banner, the social-preview SVG, and docs, with nothing keeping them honest — adding a detector silently left every published "63" stale. Introduce internal/meta as the single source of truth for the four published counts and tie them to reality two ways: - Guard: Detectors/Verifiers are asserted against the live registries (detector.All()/verifier.All()) in tests that run under `go test ./...`, so bumping the code without the constant (or vice versa) fails CI. Sources/OutputFormats stay golden constants — `scan` has a non-source `repos` subcommand and selectFormatter has fallback aliases, so neither maps cleanly to a count. - Generate: `internal/meta/statsgen` (wired to `go generate ./...`) rewrites only the text inside `stats:begin`/`stats:end` markers in banner.html and og.svg, leaving verification tiers, historical highlights, and coverage progressions untouched. A guard test runs the generator in -check mode so a stale asset fails the build. The banner/og PNGs still need a manual re-render when a number changes (no test can read pixels); the re-render command lives in each asset's header comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A from-scratch polish of the README for the first thing visitors see on the repo and the GitHub Marketplace listing.
New structure (sharp, scannable)
og.svg→docs/assets/banner.png), sharper tagline, and a release-version badge.format: github/ SARIF guidance and the exit-code table.<details>.github.Currency fixes (from the earlier review)
revand binary-download example → v1.6.0.Verified
All internal doc links resolve · footnotes defined · nav anchors match headings · no
cemililik/v1.5leftovers · banner asset committed.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit