The finding contract plus the SARIF 2.1.0 output profile, modelled on
llm-security's sarif-formatter.mjs (operator dump). Draft 2020-12, valid
against the metaschema.
The SARIF profile is proven, not transcribed: the mapping was re-implemented
from the commons JSON alone and diffed against the real toSARIF over 10
envelope shapes (all severities incl. unknown/undefined, slug edge cases,
rule-id collision, every optional-field combination, multi-scanner, explicit
version) — 0 differences.
Three things left honest rather than closed:
- additionalProperties stays open. The formatter CONSUMES findings, so fields
it ignores are invisible in this evidence; the property list is a lower
bound until the producer is supplied.
- The JSONL profile is status=unspecified with a TODO. "One finding per line"
is inference, and a guessed normative contract is worse than a missing one.
- Node and the Python guard share only severity+owasp; the rest of the field
names diverge (scanner/title vs detector/label). Recorded as an open
question for v0.2.0, not settled silently here.
One published claim was wrong and is corrected: rule-id collision does NOT
cover punctuation, only case and whitespace runs. Caught by executing the
claim instead of asserting it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0191AKc2qW6tmXDFSx1xn53q
