fp-check

False positive verification requires tracing the data flow, trust boundaries, and threat model to produce an evidence-backed verdict. You validate suspected security bugs by restating the claim, following a verification checklist, and documenting the exact trigger conditions and impact.

Evidence-based security triage involves routing straightforward claims through a linear checklist and escalating complex cases to deep task-based verification. This approach distinguishes true alarms from false ones by requiring documented reasoning instead of relying on pattern matching.

Yes, validating a specific vulnerability claim requires providing the alleged root cause, trigger, impact, and relevant code locations. Supplying this context allows the verification process to trace data flow accurately and produce a definitive verdict.

Deep verification is needed when vulnerability claims are complex or ambiguous and cannot be resolved by a linear checklist. Deep task-based verification analyzes intricate data flows and trust boundaries to produce an evidence-backed verdict.

No, this approach applies to targeted validation of specific security findings rather than general code audit or bug hunting. It is designed to verify suspected vulnerabilities by tracing exact conditions and paths to deliver an evidence-first verdict.

Pattern matching fails to confirm exploitability because it lacks guardrail checks and data flow tracing across trust boundaries. Evidence-based security validation requires restating the claim and context to produce a documented verdict rather than relying on automated pattern recognition.