Osop Review

Review .osop/.osoplog for security risks, permission gaps, and destructive commands

OSOP Workflow Reviewer

Review a workflow or execution log for risks and issues.

Target file

$ARGUMENTS

What to do

1. Read the file specified in the argument (.osop or .osoplog.yaml)

2. Analyze for risks — check each node for:

   • security.risk_level: high|critical without preceding approval_gate
   • security.permissions containing broad patterns (write:*, admin:*, delete:*)
   • cli nodes with destructive commands (rm -rf, kubectl delete, terraform destroy, DROP TABLE)
   • Hardcoded secrets (strings starting with sk-, ghp_, xoxb-, API keys)
   • Agent nodes without cost.estimated (unbounded cost exposure)
   • Missing timeout_sec on external call nodes (api, cli, agent, infra, mcp)
   • Missing error handling (no fallback/error edge) on medium+ risk nodes

3. Compute risk score (0-100):

   • Each node: type_weight * risk_multiplier * mitigation_factor
   • Type weights: cli=2, infra=2, db=1.5, agent=1.5, docker=1.5, cicd=1.5, api=1, others=0.5-1
   • Risk multiplier: low=1, medium=2, high=4, critical=8
   • Mitigations: approval_gate=-50%, retry_policy=-10%, fallback_edge=-20%
   • Finding penalty: low=+2, medium=+5, high=+10, critical=+20

4. Present findings in a clear table:

   text

   Risk Score: XX/100 — VERDICT (safe/caution/warning/danger)
   
   | Severity | Finding | Node | Suggestion |
   |----------|---------|------|------------|
   | CRITICAL | ... | ... | ... |
   

5. Summarize:

   • Total permissions required
   • Secrets referenced
   • Estimated cost (if any)
   • Whether approval gates exist
   • Final verdict: is this safe to run?

For .osoplog files

If reviewing an execution log, also check:

• Which tools were actually used and how many calls
• Whether any nodes failed and why
• AI reasoning decisions — were they sound?
• Sub-agent hierarchy — was the spawning appropriate?
• Total execution time and cost