SAST Orchestrator

When to use

This skill configures static-analysis tooling and keeps the noise low enough that findings stay actionable. It's the engine behind phase 3 of security-review and the SAST gate of /security-gate.

Activates on:

• A request like "set up Semgrep on this repo", "which CodeQL query suite should we use", "our SonarQube is full of false positives", "integrate SAST in CI".
• Existing SAST output that needs to be triaged before it goes to developers.
• PR-comment configuration where you have to decide between inline annotations and silent failure.
• A new repo where SAST is missing, or an existing one where the rule sets have grown without hygiene.
• A handoff from security-review phase 3 or the security-gate SAST gate.

When NOT to use (handoff)

• Secrets in code → secrets-scanner. SAST tools have secret rules but they are not the sharpest layer.
• Vulnerabilities in dependencies → cve-triage and supply-chain. SCA is a separate discipline.
• Runtime / dynamic analysis → dast-workflow. SAST doesn't see live auth-flow or response headers.
• IaC misconfig → iac-security. Even though tools like Semgrep have IaC rules, the specialist coverage in iac-security is sharper.
• Framework-deep rules (Django, Rails, Spring, Next.js) → django-security, rails-security, spring-security, nextjs-security respectively. Those skills can call this one for CI integration of their framework-specific rule sets.
• Pure code-pattern questions without a tool context → secure-coding.

Approach

Six phases. Phases 2 and 3 are the heart (which tools, which rules). The rest is workflow around them.

1. Scope and inventory

Know what you have before adding new tools.

• Languages and frameworks in the repo. tokei or cloc for the language breakdown, package.json/pyproject.toml/go.mod/pom.xml for frameworks. This determines which tools make sense.
• Existing SAST setup. What's already running (local linters, CI jobs, GitHub Advanced Security)? Which rule sets are active? What's the average hit rate per PR?
• Goal. Blocker-catch (pre-merge gate), compliance evidence (SOC2/ISO audit), quality trend (tech-debt dashboard), developer feedback (inline tips). The goal drives tool choice and how aggressively you fail on findings.
• Deadline and appetite. A blocker-gate setup is a different thing from a first reconnaissance. Tune aggressiveness accordingly.

Outcome: an inventory of languages plus existing checks plus goal. Without that you're choosing tools blindly.

2. Tool choice

Minimize overlap. Three tools that overlap 80% don't catch three times as much; they produce three times as much noise.

• Semgrep (open-source, Apache-2, pattern-based in YAML). Default choice for breadth. Community rule sets cover OWASP classes in all common languages. CI integration via semgrep-action or semgrep ci. Semgrep Pro (commercial) adds call-graph-based checks and reachability.
• CodeQL (GitHub, partly open-source, query-based in QL). Deeper taint tracking and dataflow analysis. Slower than Semgrep, finer in the analysis. Free for public repos, requires GitHub Advanced Security (paid) for private. Default for deep-mode reviews and security-critical codebases.
• SonarQube / SonarCloud (SonarSource, commercial). Scanner plus server plus dashboard. Strong in trend tracking and code quality (not just security). Overkill if you only want security findings; good if the team also wants to track tech debt.

Language-specific linters (as a complement where they're sharper):

• Bandit (Python) — catches Python-specific foot-guns Semgrep also sees, but with tighter pre-commit integration.
• gosec (Go) — same idea for Go.
• Brakeman (Rails) — Rails-specific checks that have much deeper Rails knowledge than general-purpose tools. See rails-security for details.
• eslint-plugin-security + eslint-plugin-security-node (JS/TS) — inline in the standard linter, no extra CI step.
• PMD / SpotBugs with FindSecBugs (Java).
• psalm / phpstan + security plugins (PHP).

Selection heuristic: one breadth tool (Semgrep) always. CodeQL for deep mode and security-critical codebases. SonarQube only when quality-trend is also a goal. Language-specific tools when the breadth tool has been shown to be too shallow (e.g. Rails without Brakeman misses a lot).

3. Ruleset curation

Tool default rule sets are a starting point, not an end point. Curation means: turn on what's valuable, turn off what doesn't fit this codebase, and write your own rules for org-specific foot-guns.

Semgrep registry rule sets (via rules: or config: directive):

• p/security-audit — broad security set for all languages.
• p/owasp-top-ten — focuses on OWASP categories, maps to A0x.
• p/ci — subset that's not too slow for every PR.
• p/<language> — language-specific (e.g. p/python, p/javascript, p/java, p/go, p/typescript, p/ruby).
• p/r2c-security-audit — r2c-curated security set, slightly different mix from OWASP.

Write custom Semgrep rules in .semgrep/ for org patterns (e.g. "don't use requests.get without a timeout", "always use our internal log_pii() wrapper"). Use the Semgrep playground for development.

CodeQL query suites:

• security-extended — standard set plus extra-strict queries.
• security-and-quality — security plus code-quality queries; larger, more noise.

Custom CodeQL queries in .github/codeql/ when org-specific patterns are too deep for Semgrep pattern matching.

SonarQube: select a Quality Profile (built-in "Sonar way" or your own). Security Hotspots and Vulnerabilities are the security-relevant categories; Code Smells is quality, not security — report separately.

Per-codebase rule tuning: some rules consistently false-positive on patterns that are deliberate in this codebase (e.g. subprocess.run with fixed arguments in an admin tool). Document the disable, never wildcard.

4. CI integration and PR comments

Running tools in CI is standard. The work is in how developers see the output.

Semgrep in GitHub Actions (minimal):

# .github/workflows/semgrep.yml
name: semgrep
on:
  pull_request:
    branches: [main]
jobs:
  semgrep:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    container: returntocorp/semgrep
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: semgrep ci --config p/security-audit --config p/owasp-top-ten

PR comments: Semgrep App (commercial) or a third-party action like reviewdog can post findings as GitHub review comments on the exact line. Alternative: upload Semgrep as SARIF to GitHub code-scanning; findings then appear in the Security tab and as inline annotations.

CodeQL in GitHub Actions:

# .github/workflows/codeql.yml
name: codeql
on:
  pull_request:
    branches: [main]
  schedule:
    - cron: '0 6 * * 1'
jobs:
  analyze:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    permissions:
      security-events: write
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - uses: github/codeql-action/init@v3
        with:
          languages: python, javascript
          queries: security-extended
      - uses: github/codeql-action/analyze@v3

CodeQL findings land automatically in the Security tab. Inline annotations on the PR via the github/codeql-action.

SonarQube: scanner as CI step, server-side rules, quality-gate config. PR decoration via the SonarQube app installed on GitHub/GitLab.

Blocker behaviour: make the job fail on new findings above a certain severity (e.g. semgrep's --severity=ERROR plus exit-code check). Don't treat findings that pre-date tool introduction as blockers; see phase 5 (baseline).

5. Noise reduction

Too many findings = findings get ignored. This is the craft.

• Baseline at introduction. The first run records all existing findings as "known"; the gate fails only on new ones. Semgrep: --baseline-ref=main or semgrep-managed baselines. CodeQL: the GitHub Advanced Security dashboard marks new vs existing. SonarQube: "new code" analysis per PR.
• In-code suppressions with reasons. Semgrep: // nosemgrep: rule-id reason (line level). CodeQL: // lgtm[rule-id] or // codeql[rule-id] plus review comment. SonarQube: // NOSONAR reason. Never wildcard suppressions; always rule-id and reason.
• Rule disabling. Rules that are structurally false-positive on this codebase: turn them off in tool config with a short rationale in the commit message. Review periodically (every quarter, or after large refactors).
• Severity regrouping. Some default severities don't fit this repo. E.g. a rule that's Info-level by default but Critical here because it touches the auth flow: promote it. In Semgrep via severity override, in CodeQL via query packs.
• Ignore paths. .semgrepignore, paths-ignore in CodeQL config. Generated code (vendor/, node_modules/, migrations/), test fixtures, and third-party copies typically belong here.
• Exit criteria. The gate fails when: a new High/Critical finding lands, or a new Medium in a critical path (auth/crypto/IO). Existing findings are not blocked but are visible. PR pass-rate should be at least 70%; below that, tuning isn't done.

6. Verification-loop

Apply verification-loop to the configuration before you let it loose on a team.

• Layer 1: scope (every language in the repo covered? every critical path excluded from the ignore-path list?), assumptions (the rule sets you turned on are current and exist?), gaps (secrets and deps referred to their own skills?), consistency (severities comparable across tools?).
• Layer 2: rule IDs and ruleset names are real, CWE / OWASP references verifiable, no custom rules claiming to detect a specific CVE without a PoC.

Output

For a new setup: CI workflow files, tool configs, and a short explanation. For triage on existing output: a categorized report.

Setup mode:

SAST setup — <repo>
Languages: <list>
Goal:      <gate | compliance | quality | feedback>

Selected tools:
- Semgrep (breadth)          — rule sets: p/security-audit, p/owasp-top-ten, p/<lang>
- CodeQL (deep)              — suite: security-extended (if GHAS available)
- <optional quality tool>    — <SonarQube | disabled>
- Language-specific:           <bandit | gosec | brakeman | eslint-security>

Delivered:
- .github/workflows/semgrep.yml
- .github/workflows/codeql.yml (if CodeQL)
- .semgrep/<org>-rules.yml (custom rules, if needed)
- .semgrepignore / paths-ignore in CodeQL
- Baseline instruction: first run on main before the gate goes live
- PR-comment strategy: <inline via SARIF | separate comment via reviewdog | Security tab only>
- Exit criteria: <severity threshold, new-only logic>

Verification-loop:
  Verdict: ...
  Security verdict: ...

Triage mode (screening existing output):

SAST triage — <tool>, <N findings>
After triage:
  Real blockers:       n1
  Real non-blockers:   n2
  False positives:     n3  (with per-rule reason)
  Rules to disable:    <rule IDs + rationale>

Per real finding:
- Rule: <tool>/<rule-id> — CWE-<N>
- Location: <file:line>
- Severity: <blocker | high | medium | low>
- Why this is real (not a false positive)
- Fix suggestion or handoff

Forwarded to security-review: <N findings>
Ignored with documentation: <N, with reasons>

No raw tool dumps in the deliverable. Those belong in the CI log, not the reviewer's inbox.

References

• Semgrep docs — https://semgrep.dev/docs/. Tool docs, rule syntax, CI integration.
• Semgrep Registry — https://semgrep.dev/r. Search interface for rule sets and individual rules.
• CodeQL docs — https://codeql.github.com/docs/. Queries, query suites, dataflow analysis.
• GitHub Code Scanning — https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/code-scanning. How SARIF findings land in the UI.
• SonarQube Rules — https://rules.sonarsource.com/. Rule inventory per language.
• OWASP Benchmark — https://owasp.org/www-project-benchmark/. SAST tool comparison (note: dated, but methodologically still relevant).
• SARIF spec — https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.1.0/os/sarif-v2.1.0-os.html. Interchange format for scan output; carries findings between tools.
• Bandit — https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit. Python-specific linter.
• gosec — https://github.com/securego/gosec. Go-specific linter.
• Brakeman — https://brakemanscanner.org/. Rails-specific SAST.

Categories

• appsec