differential-review

To perform a security audit on a code diff, you analyze the changed files by prioritizing security risks, leveraging git history, blast radius, and test-coverage data to produce actionable markdown reports for your PRs.

Blast radius analysis in code changes assesses the potential impact of modifications by evaluating git history and test-coverage data to identify security regressions and calculate risk scores for structured audit outputs.

Yes, you can use git history to assess risk in pull requests by analyzing the historical context of changed files, which helps adapt the depth of the security review and trace evidence-backed findings.

You generate structured markdown reports for PR security reviews by invoking the differential-review workflow on changed files, which outputs phase-aligned audit results with traceable findings, risk scores, and concrete remediation guidance.

Yes, differential security review adapts its depth of analysis based on the codebase size, ensuring reproducible and evidence-backed findings by scaling the security audit context appropriately for varying project scales.

The best way to integrate code diff analysis with issue tracking is to use workflows that connect audit-context-building and issue-writer processes, providing traceable security findings and concrete remediation guidance directly from the diff.