feat(enrichment): detect Slack enterprise and cookie tokens in secret-scan

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

The slack_token rule matched xoxb / xoxp / xoxa / xoxr / xoxs but missed xoxe (enterprise) and xoxc (cookie) tokens, so those credentials went unflagged in PR diffs.

Scope

Extends the type character class from xox[baprs] to xox[baprsec]. Classic bot tokens still match. No value is returned — only kind/confidence/file/line.

Test plan

• xoxe-… and xoxc-… positives (built from fragments).
• Classic xoxb-… still flagged.
• node --test test/secret-scan.test.ts — 23 passed.

No linked issue

Self-contained detection-coverage improvement; no tracking issue. Touches only secret-scan.ts and additive tests.

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-04 15:13:19 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 73/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a narrow secret-scan coverage improvement: the Slack token rule now accepts `xoxe-` enterprise and `xoxc-` cookie prefixes while preserving the existing classic token path. The new tests exercise the production `scanPatch` path with fragment-built fixtures, so the detection change is grounded in the actual analyzer behavior and does not expose literal secret-shaped values in source. I do not see a reachable correctness, wiring, or test-quality blocker in this diff.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• nit: review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:232 asserts `confidence` for `xoxe` but not for the new `xoxc` case, so the paired regression test is slightly asymmetric.
• nit: review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:240 keeps the classic `xoxb` regression to `kind` only; asserting `confidence: "high"` would match the rest of this file's format-specific token coverage.
• review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:232 Add `assert.equal(cookieFindings[0].confidence, "high");` so both newly supported Slack token classes lock the same contract.
• review-enrichment/test/secret-scan.test.ts:240 Add `assert.equal(findings[0].confidence, "high");` to keep the classic Slack regression aligned with the rule contract.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 151 registered-repo PR(s), 73 merged, 10 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 151 PR(s), 10 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 151 PR(s), 10 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[gittensory-orb]

Gittensory approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.