Semgrep vs Gitleaks

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullprobed8/10

   Semgrep hosts a working llms.txt at docs.semgrep.dev/llms.txt (HTTP 200, confirmed by probe) plus per-page .md agent-friendly docs (e.g. semgrep-docs-49, semgrep-docs-50), showing an agent can be pointed directly at machine-readable docs. missing for 10: independent/community confirmation that agents actually consume this llms.txt successfully, and no evidence of a broader agent-oriented docs index beyond the single llms.txt file.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.semgrep.dev/llms.txt # Semgrep ## Home - [Semgrep Docs](https://docs.semgrep.dev/index.md): Get s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “scan your first project, which can be any codebase, repository, or folder within a monorepo, for security issues, and view your findings”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can run local Semgrep CLI scans with the Semgrep command-line tool.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.semgrep.dev/getting-started/cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   A direct probe found no llms.txt file (404) and no agent-oriented docs/openapi endpoints, so there is no evidence Gitleaks provides machine-readable docs for AI agents.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullcommunity9/10

   Semgrep has a well-documented CLI (`semgrep ci`, `semgrep scan`) designed for headless/CI use, with dedicated CI provider integrations, pre-commit hooks, SARIF export, no-login/dry-run modes, and an API for programmatic access to findings—clearly supporting automated, non-interactive pipelines. Independent evidence (Zulip, Microsoft SARIF+LLM triage pipeline) confirms real-world CI/automation usage at scale. Missing for 10: no first-party benchmark of CI runtime performance at scale beyond anecdotal community complaints about slowness.

   • [claimed-docs] “navigate to the root of your project, and run your first scan: semgrep ci”
   • [claimed-docs] “This guide walks you through creating a Semgrep job in the following CI providers, which are explicitly supported in Semgrep AppSec Platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep is integrated into CI environments by creating a **job** that is run by the CI provider. After a scan, findings are sent to Semgrep …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `--dry-run` flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You do **not** need to be logged in to run a scan.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file: semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [community] “Built a tool using Semgrep's SARIF output plus prompted LLMs to help prioritize triage; used at Microsoft for the past year to help surface …”
   • [community] “We've used Semgrep for Zulip's Python codebase for months and really appreciate the semantic checks, especially for security lint rules - it…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI that scans repos, directories, or stdin, is installable via Homebrew/Docker/Go, and has an official GitHub Action (gitleaks-action) for automated CI scanning on PRs/commits with exit-code-based pass/fail reporting, making it well-suited for headless CI automation. Missing for 10: evidence of non-GitHub CI integrations (GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI) and JSON/SARIF output examples for machine-readable pipeline consumption.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks can be installed using Homebrew, Docker, or Go.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use it to automatically run a gitleaks scan on all your team's pull requests and commits, or run on-demand scans.”
   • [github] “➜ git commit -m "this commit contains a secret" Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep✓fullprobed8/10

   Semgrep ships a well-documented, installable official CLI (pipx/uv install, `semgrep scan`/`semgrep ci`, SARIF export, autofix, dry-run, no-login mode) that is fully scriptable and thus usable by AI agents, and this is corroborated by community usage reports and a dedicated probe confirming the CLI docs page. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of machine-readable (e.g., JSON) output tailored for programmatic/agent consumption and independent evidence of AI agents specifically driving the CLI.

   • [claimed-docs] “pipx install semgrep # preferred: install through uv (https://docs.astral.sh/uv/) uv tool install semgrep”
   • [claimed-docs] “semgrep scan - This is the recommended command for scanning local codebases or scanning a project when you don't have a Semgrep account”
   • [claimed-docs] “navigate to the root of your project, and run your first scan: semgrep ci”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `--dry-run` flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You do **not** need to be logged in to run a scan.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file: semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.semgrep.dev/getting-started/cli”
   • [community] “We've used Semgrep for Zulip's Python codebase for months and really appreciate the semantic checks, especially for security lint rules - it…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullprobed8/10

   Gitleaks ships a first-party CLI (git, dir, stdin subcommands) that is well documented with usage examples and is the primary interface for the tool, making it fully scriptable/automatable for agentic workflows. Missing for 10: no explicit agent/LLM-oriented docs (e.g., llms.txt returns 404) or structured JSON-output guidance tailored to AI consumers.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialprobed6/10

   Semgrep AppSec Platform documents a public API for listing deployments, findings, and projects, and the CLI itself is scriptable for automation, but there is no OpenAPI/swagger spec discoverable (probe returned 404s on all candidate paths) and no independent/community corroboration of programmatic API usage. missing for 10: discoverable OpenAPI/schema documentation, broader API surface details (write operations, rate limits), and independent evidence of third-party integrations built against the API.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.semgrep.dev/openapi.json, https://docs.semgrep.dev/swagger.json, https://docs.semgrep.d…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI/scanner tool with no documented public API for programmatic/agentic access; probes confirm no llms.txt and no OpenAPI/swagger endpoint exist, and the CLI/GitHub Action docs don't constitute a public API.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   Evidence shows Semgrep provides a REST API for querying findings/deployments and CI-integration on push/PR events, but nothing describes a webhook subscription mechanism for events; no docs mention webhook endpoints or event-driven notifications to external systems.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI secret-scanning tool with CI integrations (GitHub Action, PR comments, alerts) but no evidence of a webhook subscription mechanism for events; probes for API/openapi specs returned 404s, and no webhook docs exist.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A list of GitHub accounts that should be alerted when **gitleaks-action** detects a leak.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialcommunity6/10

   Semgrep Code's 'AI-Powered Detection' and 'Semgrep Assistant (AI)' features are documented as generating insights (identifying complex business-logic flaws like IDORs, reducing false-positive noise by ~20%, combining AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for triage/remediation), which matches the story of in-product AI-generated insights. However, independent corroboration is thin — the one relevant community datapoint (semgrep-comm-14) describes a third party building their own external LLM triage layer on top of Semgrep's SARIF output rather than validating Semgrep Assistant itself, and another (semgrep-comm-13) notes an LLM hallucinating semgrep syntax when asked to help write rules, which is tangential. missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of Semgrep Assistant's own AI suggestions, more detail on scope/accuracy of AI-Powered Detection, and confirmation these AI features are broadly available rather than gated/beta.

   • [claimed-docs] “With AI-Powered Detection, you can automatically identify complex business logic flaws, such as IDORs and broken authorization.”
   • [github] “Contextual post-processing of findings with Semgrep Assistant (AI) to further reduce noise by ~20%”
   • [claimed-docs] “Combine AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Code is transparent; you can configure the rules it runs and inspect its syntax to understand how the finding was detected.”
   • [community] “Built a tool using Semgrep's SARIF output plus prompted LLMs to help prioritize triage; used at Microsoft for the past year to help surface …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a rule-based secret-detection scanner with no evidence of AI-generated insights, summaries, or suggestions; probes for llms.txt and API/OpenAPI endpoints returned 404, and all documented features are deterministic regex/rule-based scanning, alerting, and CI integration.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”
   • [github] “Gitleaks offers a configuration format you can follow to write your own secret detection rules”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep~partialclaimed5/10

   Semgrep supports automation via CI triggers on push/PR events, pre-commit hooks, and bulk 'Managed Scans' that run without manual invocation, and it has an AI Assistant/AI-Powered Detection layer for triage — providing real background automation. However, this is rule-based scan automation, not an autonomous agent that independently plans/executes multi-step actions; there's no evidence of scheduled/cron-like agentic orchestration beyond scan-on-event triggers. Missing for 10: evidence of autonomous multi-step agentic decision-making, scheduling/orchestration beyond CI-triggered scans, and independent confirmation that AI-driven remediation runs unattended.

   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events, Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “consider Semgrep Managed Scans, which enables you to bulk onboard and scan your repositories without requiring changes to your CI”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run `semgrep` when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With AI-Powered Detection, you can automatically identify complex business logic flaws, such as IDORs and broken authorization.”
   • [github] “Contextual post-processing of findings with Semgrep Assistant (AI) to further reduce noise by ~20%”
   • [claimed-docs] “Combine AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed6/10

   Gitleaks-action lets teams wire secret scanning to run automatically in the background on every push/PR (and pre-commit hooks trigger locally) without manual intervention, satisfying the 'runs autonomously' spirit of the story. Missing for 10: no evidence of scheduled/cron-based or event-driven automation beyond git hooks/CI triggers, and no AI-agent-specific orchestration or self-triggering capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use it to automatically run a gitleaks scan on all your team's pull requests and commits, or run on-demand scans.”
   • [github] “You can run Gitleaks as a pre-commit hook by copying the example `pre-commit.py` script into your `.git/hooks/` directory.”
   • [claimed-docs] “There are no changes to inputs, outputs, or behavior. The upgrade is a one-line change in your workflow file”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   Semgrep documents an AppSec Platform API (list deployments, findings, projects) but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference with runnable/try-it examples; the openapi.json/swagger probes returned 404 on all candidate paths, indicating no interactive spec-based docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.semgrep.dev/openapi.json, https://docs.semgrep.dev/swagger.json, https://docs.semgrep.d…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI secret-scanning tool with no interactive API reference; probes explicitly show no llms.txt and no OpenAPI/swagger spec found on gitleaks.io, and evidence only documents CLI commands, not a runnable API playground.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   Semgrep documents a REST API for the AppSec Platform (semgrep-docs-17/59) but a direct probe for machine-readable OpenAPI/Swagger specs at standard paths returned 404 everywhere (semgrep-probe-2), and no evidence of a published API spec exists elsewhere in the pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.semgrep.dev/openapi.json, https://docs.semgrep.dev/swagger.json, https://docs.semgrep.d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI secret-scanning tool with no API/web service, and direct probes confirm no OpenAPI or machine-readable spec exists at any expected location.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   Semgrep documents an AppSec Platform API (semgrep-docs-17/59) but no evidence pack item mentions API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; an OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s (semgrep-probe-2), suggesting no formal API contract is published. missing for 10: versioning scheme documentation, deprecation policy/notice process, changelog or migration guides for API changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.semgrep.dev/openapi.json, https://docs.semgrep.dev/swagger.json, https://docs.semgrep.d…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is a CLI/CI secret-scanning tool with no evidence of a public/versioned API; probes for OpenAPI spec and llms.txt both returned 404s, and there's no mention of an API deprecation policy anywhere in the evidence.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep~partialclaimed6/10

   Semgrep supports bulk-style operations such as scanning an entire codebase/monorepo in one command, cross-file/interfile analysis across many files, and 'Managed Scans' explicitly designed to 'bulk onboard and scan your repositories without requiring changes to your CI.' The AppSec Platform API also lets you programmatically list deployments/projects/findings across an organization. However, there is no documented bulk-action tooling (e.g., bulk triage, bulk rule application, batch API calls) beyond onboarding/scanning, so the story is only partially covered. Missing for 10: explicit bulk API endpoints for mass finding triage/remediation, evidence of batch operations beyond scanning/onboarding, and independent confirmation of large-scale bulk workflows in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “consider Semgrep Managed Scans, which enables you to bulk onboard and scan your repositories without requiring changes to your CI”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to set up Semgrep, scan your first project, which can be any codebase, repository, or folder within a monorepo, for security issue…”
   • [claimed-docs] “scan your first project, which can be any codebase, repository, or folder within a monorepo, for security issues, and view your findings”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep AppSec Platform, and list p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep AppSec Platform provides an API that enables you to list deployments, gather findings created by Semgrep”
   • [claimed-docs] “To turn on cross-file analysis, which allows you to detect vulnerabilities across files and folders”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed6/10

   Gitleaks natively scans across many items at once — entire directories/file trees via the `dir` command and full git commit history via `git log -p` with the `git` command, and gitleaks-action can scan all PRs/commits automatically in CI. However, there's no evidence of a broader batch/programmatic API for bulk operations beyond directory/repo scanning (e.g., processing many repos, bulk config management, or structured bulk output for agentic pipelines). Missing for 10: multi-repo/bulk-target orchestration, programmatic batch API beyond CLI file/dir args, and evidence of AI-native bulk workflows.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos. Under the hood, gitleaks uses the `git log -p` command to scan patches.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files. Example: `gitleaks dir -v path_to_directory_or…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use it to automatically run a gitleaks scan on all your team's pull requests and commits, or run on-demand scans.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullclaimed8/10

   Semgrep rules can be configured to run automatically on events (push, PR/MR, pre-commit) and trigger downstream actions such as PR comments, alerts/notifications, ticket creation, and autofix application — all documented as first-class features (semgrep-docs-25/28/16/46/22/30/38/53/57). This directly matches the story of rules triggering automated actions on events. missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence confirming these automated trigger-action pipelines (e.g., ticket creation, alerting) work reliably in production beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events, Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run `semgrep` when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings * Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can apply the Rule-defined fix directly to the file using the `--autofix` flag.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can apply the Rule-defined fix directly to the file using the --autofix flag.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use Semgrep and its GitHub integration to automate PR comments that you frequently make in code reviews.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed5/10

   Gitleaks supports custom detection rules (regex-based) and can trigger automatic actions on events—pre-commit hook blocks commits containing secrets, and gitleaks-action runs on GitHub push/PR events to alert accounts and comment on PRs. However this is limited to secret-scanning triggers tied to git/CI events, not a general-purpose rule/action automation engine. Missing for 10: evidence of arbitrary event types or custom action definitions beyond GitHub-specific alerting/commenting, and no AI-native/agentic trigger framework.

   • [github] “You can run Gitleaks as a pre-commit hook by copying the example `pre-commit.py` script into your `.git/hooks/` directory.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks offers a configuration format you can follow to write your own secret detection rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A list of GitHub accounts that should be alerted when **gitleaks-action** detects a leak.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**gitleaks-action** uses this token to call [a GitHub API] to comment on PRs.”
   • [github] “➜ git commit -m "this commit contains a secret" Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialclaimed3/10

   Semgrep supports automated scanning triggered by CI events (push, PR/MR) and offers Managed Scans for bulk repo scanning without CI changes, which implies some recurring automation, but there is no explicit documentation of a scheduling/cron mechanism or workflow orchestration for recurring jobs as an AI-native automation feature. missing for 10: explicit scheduling/cron support, documented recurring job configuration, and evidence of AI-native workflow orchestration beyond CI trigger events.

   • [claimed-docs] “consider Semgrep Managed Scans, which enables you to bulk onboard and scan your repositories without requiring changes to your CI”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events, Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This guide walks you through creating a Semgrep job in the following CI providers, which are explicitly supported in Semgrep AppSec Platform”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Evidence shows Gitleaks integrates with git hooks and GitHub Actions triggered by commits/PRs, but nothing describes scheduling recurring/cron-based scans or workflows as a distinct capability. The axis applies (CI security tools commonly support scheduled scans) but no evidence confirms this for Gitleaks.

   ⚑ flag

Agent scanning

1. ai-native userHave an agent run a scan headlessly via the CLI, parse machine-readable results, and file issues for real findings

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialcommunity7/10

   Semgrep's CLI clearly supports headless, unauthenticated scanning (`semgrep ci`/`semgrep scan`, no login required, --dry-run) and machine-readable output via SARIF export, which an agent could parse. Community evidence (semgrep-comm-14) shows this pattern used in practice — SARIF output plus LLM triage to surface real findings for human review at Microsoft. Docs also mention 'send alerts/notifications or create tickets to track findings' for Semgrep Code, but this is vague and tied to the platform tier rather than a demonstrated CLI-to-issue-tracker pipeline. Missing for 10: explicit documented JSON/SARIF-to-ticket automation workflow, first-party GitHub/Jira issue-filing integration for CLI findings, and independent hands-on confirmation that filed issues correspond only to 'real' (non-false-positive) findings given community complaints about false positives (semgrep-comm-11).

   • [claimed-docs] “navigate to the root of your project, and run your first scan: semgrep ci”
   • [claimed-docs] “semgrep scan - This is the recommended command for scanning local codebases or scanning a project when you don't have a Semgrep account”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `--dry-run` flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You do **not** need to be logged in to run a scan.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file:”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file: semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif”
   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings * Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [community] “Built a tool using Semgrep's SARIF output plus prompted LLMs to help prioritize triage; used at Microsoft for the past year to help surface …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed5/10

   Gitleaks CLI supports headless scanning of repos/dirs/stdin and can output baseline reports like findings.json, giving a machine-readable artifact an agent could parse; gitleaks-action also automates PR-based alerting. However there's no explicit documentation of a structured JSON/SARIF report flag, and no evidence of automated issue-filing (only PR comments/alerts to accounts, not issue tracker integration). Missing for 10: explicit machine-readable output format docs (e.g. --report-format json/sarif), and evidence of automated issue creation for real findings.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos. Under the hood, gitleaks uses the `git log -p` command to scan patches.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files. Example: `gitleaks dir -v path_to_directory_or…”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command. Example: `cat some_file | gitleaks -v stdin`”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**gitleaks-action** uses this token to call [a GitHub API] to comment on PRs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A list of GitHub accounts that should be alerted when **gitleaks-action** detects a leak.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userWire the scanner into my coding agent so AI-generated code is scanned for issues before it lands

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullprobed7/10

   Semgrep ships an official MCP server (docs.semgrep.dev/mcp) letting coding agents call the scanner directly, plus first-party messaging on scanning/fixing AI-generated code the moment it's written and combining AI reasoning with rule-based detection, and a pre-commit hook to catch issues before they land in Git history. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation that the MCP integration reliably works inside real agent workflows, and detail on latency or false-positive behavior when used inline with AI code generation.

   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.semgrep.dev/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scan and fix AI-generated code the moment it's written”
   • [claimed-docs] “Combine AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run `semgrep` when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking i…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed4/10

   Gitleaks offers generic mechanisms (pre-commit hook script, CLI `dir`/`git`/`stdin` scanning, CI action) that a user could wire into an AI coding agent's workflow to scan generated code before it lands, but there is no documented agent-specific integration (no MCP server, no Claude Code/Cursor plugin, no explicit guidance for AI-native pipelines). missing for 10: dedicated AI-agent integration docs, MCP/agent-hook examples, evidence of use specifically for AI-generated code review.

   • [github] “You can run Gitleaks as a pre-commit hook by copying the example `pre-commit.py` script into your `.git/hooks/` directory.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command. Example: `cat some_file | gitleaks -v stdin`”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files. Example: `gitleaks dir -v path_to_directory_or…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ci gates

1. devops-leadRun scans in CI on every pull request and fail the build on new findings via exit codes

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullcommunity9/10

   Docs explicitly cover running `semgrep ci` in CI pipelines triggered on push/PR events, with dedicated CI provider guides, SARIF export, and exit-code based build behavior implied by 'ci' command design for gating; community evidence corroborates real-world CI usage. missing for 10: explicit documented mention of exit code semantics for failing builds on new findings (implied but not directly quoted).

   • [claimed-docs] “navigate to the root of your project, and run your first scan: semgrep ci”
   • [claimed-docs] “This guide walks you through creating a Semgrep job in the following CI providers, which are explicitly supported in Semgrep AppSec Platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep is integrated into CI environments by creating a **job** that is run by the CI provider. After a scan, findings are sent to Semgrep …”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file: semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif”
   • [community] “We've used Semgrep for Zulip's Python codebase for months and really appreciate the semantic checks, especially for security lint rules - it…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks-Action enables scanning on GitHub PR workflows with alerts/comments, and the CLI's detect command exits non-zero on findings (shown by failed commit hook example), which is the mechanism CI systems use to fail builds. missing for 10: explicit documentation of CI-specific exit code semantics (e.g., non-zero exit on new findings vs baseline) and non-GitHub CI examples (GitLab/Jenkins) beyond the GitHub Action.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use it to automatically run a gitleaks scan on all your team's pull requests and commits, or run on-demand scans.”
   • [github] “➜ git commit -m "this commit contains a secret" Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”
   • [github] “gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerSee scan findings surfaced as pull-request comments or checks in GitHub or GitLab

   weight 2 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs confirm Semgrep integrates into CI at push/PR/MR events, posts PR/MR comments for Secrets findings, and offers a GitHub integration for automating PR review comments, with findings sent to the AppSec Platform after scans. missing for 10: explicit first-party documentation of GitHub/GitLab PR status checks (not just comments) for Semgrep Code/Supply Chain findings, and independent hands-on confirmation of the PR-comment UX beyond docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “informs developers of valid secrets in their PRs and MRs by posting comments directly”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events; Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “your development cycle benefits from the automated scanning of repositories at various events, such as: Push events, Pull requests or merge …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep is integrated into CI environments by creating a **job** that is run by the CI provider. After a scan, findings are sent to Semgrep …”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use Semgrep and its GitHub integration to automate PR comments that you frequently make in code reviews.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This guide walks you through creating a Semgrep job in the following CI providers, which are explicitly supported in Semgrep AppSec Platform”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks-Action explicitly integrates into GitHub workflows and uses the GitHub API to post PR comments/reviews when secrets are detected, and it can also fail CI checks on findings; it's a well-documented first-party GitHub Action. Missing for 10: GitLab-specific MR comment/check integration is not evidenced (only GitHub is covered), and no independent/hands-on confirmation of the PR-comment behavior beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**gitleaks-action** uses this token to call [a GitHub API] to comment on PRs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**gitleaks-action** uses this token to call [a GitHub API](https://octokit.github.io/rest.js/v18#pulls-create-review-comment) to comment on …”
   • [claimed-docs] “gitleaks-action uses this token to call a GitHub API to comment on PRs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A list of GitHub accounts that should be alerted when **gitleaks-action** detects a leak.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable this **gitleaks-action** and copy `<img alt="gitleaks badge" src="https://img.shields.io/badge/protected%20by-gitleaks-blue">` to you…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Pre commit

1. developerRun the scanner as a pre-commit hook so secrets and issues never enter my git history

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullclaimed9/10

   Semgrep has explicit first-party documentation for integrating with the pre-commit framework, stating it runs semgrep on commit specifically to prevent secrets and security issues from leaking into git history, matching the story verbatim. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on community confirmation specifically of the pre-commit hook workflow (community evidence covers CLI/CI use generally, not pre-commit hook experience).

   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run `semgrep` when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgr”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks documents running as a pre-commit hook via the example pre-commit.py script copied into .git/hooks, and demonstrates it blocking a commit containing a secret ("git commit ... Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed"), confirming secrets are caught before entering history. Missing for 10: no mention of official pre-commit-framework (.pre-commit-hooks.yaml) integration or independent hands-on confirmation beyond the vendor repo.

   • [github] “You can run Gitleaks as a pre-commit hook by copying the example `pre-commit.py` script into your `.git/hooks/` directory.”
   • [github] “➜ git commit -m "this commit contains a secret" Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”
   • [github] “Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Coverage

1. developerScan projects across all the major languages and package ecosystems my organization uses

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep~partialcommunity6/10

   Docs and community evidence show Semgrep scanning across many languages (Python, JS/TS, Ruby, YAML, HTML, CSS) and separately covering open-source package ecosystems via Semgrep Supply Chain (docs-11,12,13,23,29,44,55), plus a generic-pattern fallback for unsupported languages (docs-39). However there's no explicit doc listing 'all major languages/ecosystems' coverage, and a hands-on report shows Semgrep's parser failing on valid TypeScript syntax (comm-3), plus performance complaints scanning large multi-language codebases (comm-2, comm-7) that temper the breadth claim. missing for 10: an explicit enumerated language/ecosystem coverage matrix, resolution of the TypeScript parser bug, and independent benchmarking across the full claimed language set.

   • [claimed-docs] “If there's a code pattern in the codebase that matches the vulnerability definition, the finding is flagged as reachable.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate reports and software bills of materials (SBOM) that provide a complete inventory of your open source components”
   • [claimed-docs] “Supply Chain's Dynamic Dependency Resolution provides a complete inventory of your project's dependencies using a combination of manifest pa…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Detect malicious dependencies associated with Supply Chain attacks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Supply Chain is a software composition analysis (SCA) tool that detects security vulnerabilities in your codebase introduced by open…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep can match generic patterns in languages that it does **not** yet support.”
   • [community] “Semgrep's parser complains that valid TypeScript using a typed catch clause (`catch (error: unknown)`) is invalid and can't be parsed.”
   • [community] “The underlying tree-sitter parser Semgrep uses is amazing - parsing millions of files across JS, TS, Ruby, YAML, HTML, CSS in about half a m…”
   • [community] “Running the CI ruleset on a tiny Django hobby project spun all cores to 100% after 33% progress and made the OS almost unresponsive; had to …”
   • [community] “We've used Semgrep for Zulip's Python codebase for months and really appreciate the semantic checks, especially for security lint rules - it…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed6/10

   Gitleaks scans git repos, directories/files, and stdin using regex-based pattern matching, which is inherently language-agnostic and works on any text-based source file or config regardless of the language or package ecosystem in use. However, there is no explicit evidence of ecosystem-specific coverage claims, testing across specific language/package manager formats, or documentation asserting broad multi-language validation. missing for 10: explicit language/ecosystem coverage claims, evidence of testing across specific ecosystems (npm, pip, maven, etc.), independent corroboration of coverage breadth.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files. Example: `gitleaks dir -v path_to_directory_or…”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command. Example: `cat some_file | gitleaks -v stdin`”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Output formats

1. developerEmit scan results in machine-readable formats like JSON or SARIF for downstream tooling

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullcommunity9/10

   Docs explicitly document exporting SARIF output via `semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif`, and community evidence shows real-world use of Semgrep's SARIF output for downstream tooling (e.g., piping into LLM triage at Microsoft). JSON output is also a standard supported format implied by the CLI's general reporting capabilities, though not separately documented in this pack. missing for 10: explicit docs snippet for --json flag usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file:”
   • [claimed-docs] “To export the results to a SARIF file: semgrep ci --sarif --sarif-output=semgrep.sarif”
   • [community] “Built a tool using Semgrep's SARIF output plus prompted LLMs to help prioritize triage; used at Microsoft for the past year to help surface …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed5/10

   Evidence shows Gitleaks writes findings to a JSON report file (e.g., findings.json via --baseline-path) confirming JSON output support, but there is no mention in the evidence pack of SARIF or other machine-readable formats. missing for 10: explicit SARIF output support, documentation of --report-format flag or other structured formats, independent confirmation of downstream tooling integration.

   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”
   • [github] “gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep~partialcommunity5/10

   The core Semgrep engine is hosted on a public GitHub repo (semgrep-gh-1/2/3), showing source code is publicly readable, but no evidence pack item states an explicit open-source license (e.g., LGPL) or points to a LICENSE file. Community evidence also notes that a commercial component, Semgrep Supply Chain, is explicitly 'not open source' (semgrep-comm-12), meaning the broader product is not uniformly open-licensed. missing for 10: explicit license text/citation, confirmation covering all product components, independent verification of license terms.

   • [github] “Semgrep would match x = 1; y = x + 1 when searching for 2”
   • [github] “Semgrep analyzes code locally on your computer or in your build environment: by default, code is never upload”
   • [github] “Contextual post-processing of findings with Semgrep Assistant (AI) to further reduce noise by ~20%”
   • [community] “Regarding Semgrep Supply Chain: "This is not open source, though? It does make a big difference for some whether you're able to run the chec…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullprobed7/10

   Gitleaks' source code is openly hosted and directly referenced across many citations (e.g. gitleaks-gh-1, gitleaks-probe-3), confirming it is a publicly readable GitHub repository that anyone, including AI-native users, can inspect. However, the evidence pack never explicitly cites a license file or license name (e.g. MIT), so full confirmation of an 'open license' designation is inferred rather than directly documented. Missing for 10: an explicit license statement/citation (e.g. LICENSE file content) and independent corroboration of the license terms.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks”
   • [github] “Gitleaks can be installed using Homebrew, Docker, or Go.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSelf-host the core product

   weight 3 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep✓fullclaimed7/10

   Semgrep's core CLI/engine is open source and runs entirely on local infrastructure by default, never uploading code, and works without an account or login, which is effectively self-hosting the core scanning product (semgrep-gh-2, semgrep-docs-33/34/50/51/27). Missing for 10: explicit documentation of self-hosting the full AppSec Platform/server components, and independent hands-on confirmation of a self-hosted enterprise deployment.

   • [github] “Semgrep analyzes code locally on your computer or in your build environment: by default, code is never upload”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `--dry-run` flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You do **not** need to be logged in to run a scan.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can run local Semgrep CLI scans with the Semgrep command-line tool.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The --dry-run flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “semgrep scan - This is the recommended command for scanning local codebases or scanning a project when you don't have a Semgrep account”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks is a fully open-source CLI (installable via Homebrew, Docker, or Go) that runs entirely locally against git repos, directories, or stdin, requiring no cloud service — a clear self-hostable core product. Missing for 10: no explicit self-hosting deployment guide (e.g., server/container orchestration docs) beyond basic install instructions.

   • [github] “Gitleaks can be installed using Homebrew, Docker, or Go.”
   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialclaimed5/10

   Semgrep's docs and GitHub README indicate privacy-conscious defaults: code is analyzed locally and never uploaded by default, no login is required to run a scan, and the --dry-run flag explicitly prevents scan results from being uploaded to the Semgrep web app. However, there's no explicit documentation of a dedicated 'telemetry/usage tracking' opt-out setting (e.g., an env var or flag specifically for metrics/telemetry) beyond the scan-upload behavior. missing for 10: explicit telemetry/usage-metrics opt-out flag or setting, independent confirmation of what usage data (if any) is collected outside of code content.

   • [github] “Semgrep analyzes code locally on your computer or in your build environment: by default, code is never upload”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `--dry-run` flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You do **not** need to be logged in to run a scan.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The --dry-run flag ensures that your scans are not uploaded to the Semgrep web app.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses telemetry collection or an opt-out mechanism for Gitleaks or gitleaks-action; the docs cover scanning commands, CI integration, and config but never mention data collection or privacy controls.

   ⚑ flag

Custom rules

1. security-engineerWrite custom static-analysis rules in a simple syntax and share them across repositories

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullcommunity8/10

   Semgrep's docs extensively cover writing custom rules with a simple YAML-based pattern syntax, testing them, using taint tracking, and sharing rules across repos via the Registry and private rules for teams; community evidence (HN) confirms security engineers actually write custom rules to catch codebase-specific antipatterns and find the syntax readable/flexible across languages. Missing for 10: independent evidence specifically validating cross-repo sharing workflows at scale, and community reports note real limitations (bypassable rules, parser errors, performance issues) that slightly temper confidence in robustness.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can write custom rules to determine what Semgrep detects in your repositories”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can write and test using the [Semgrep Editor]”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can write rules that: Automate code review comments. Identify secure coding violations. Scan configuration files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Users with Semgrep Code's Team or Enterprise tier can publish rules to the Semgrep Registry as private rules that are not visible to those o…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep provides a testing mechanism for your rules. You can write code and provide annotations to let Semgrep know where you are or aren't …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Taint tracking (known also as taint analysis) enables you to write simple rules that catch complex injection bugs, such as those that can re…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep supports taint analysis, also known as taint tracking, through taint rules.”
   • [community] “As a security consultant, I write custom Semgrep rules to match antipatterns unique to a codebase (e.g., controllers missing an authorizatio…”
   • [community] “A simple Semgrep 'no-prints' rule can be trivially bypassed with a workaround like `import builtins; builtins.print("whee")`, showing the to…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks~partialclaimed7/10

   Gitleaks documents a TOML-based config format for writing custom secret-detection rules, including composite rules and allowlists, and this config can be centralized as a `gitleaks.toml` or referenced via `GITLEAKS_CONFIG` so it can be reused across repos (e.g. gitleaks-action auto-detecting it). This is more of a config-file sharing mechanism than a purpose-built 'rule sharing' feature, and there's no independent corroboration of ease-of-use or a rule marketplace/registry. Missing for 10: independent hands-on evidence of rule syntax simplicity, evidence of a shared rule registry/marketplace, and confirmation of seamless cross-repo rule versioning.

   • [github] “Gitleaks offers a configuration format you can follow to write your own secret detection rules”
   • [github] “Gitleaks introduced composite rules, which are made up of a single "primary" rule and one or more auxiliary or `required` rules.”
   • [github] “In v8.28.0 Gitleaks introduced composite rules, which are made up of a single "primary" rule and one or more auxiliary or `required` rules.”
   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use `GITLEAKS_CONFIG` to explicitly set a config path _or_ create a `gitleaks.toml` at the root of the repo which will be automatica…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can use GITLEAKS_CONFIG to explicitly set a config path or create a gitleaks.toml at the root of the repo which will be automatically de…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Fix suggestions

1. developerApply suggested or automatic code fixes for findings instead of only reading reports

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialclaimed6/10

   Semgrep supports rule-defined autofix via the --autofix flag, letting developers apply suggested fixes directly to files (semgrep-docs-38, semgrep-docs-53), and AppSec Platform mentions 'remediation' and 'fix AI-generated code' (semgrep-docs-45, semgrep-docs-47). However, autofix depends on individual rules defining a fix and is not universal across all findings, and there's no independent/community evidence confirming real-world reliability of autofix. missing for 10: community/hands-on validation of autofix accuracy, evidence of coverage breadth (what % of rules ship with fixes), and any first-party numbers on fix acceptance rates.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can apply the Rule-defined fix directly to the file using the `--autofix` flag.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can apply the Rule-defined fix directly to the file using the --autofix flag.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep is integrated into CI environments by creating a **job** that is run by the CI provider. After a scan, findings are sent to Semgrep …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scan and fix AI-generated code the moment it's written”
   • [claimed-docs] “Combine AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks is purely a secret-detection tool that reports findings (via CLI, git hooks, or gitleaks-action PR comments); no evidence anywhere in the pack of suggested or automatic remediation/fixes for detected secrets—only detection, alerting, allowlisting, and baseline suppression are described.

   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”
   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable **Gitleaks-Action** in your GitHub workflows to be alerted when secrets are leaked as soon as they happen.”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Custom detection

1. security-engineerDefine custom detection rules for my organization's internal token and secret formats

   weight 2 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep~partialcommunity6/10

   Semgrep's generic rule-writing engine is well documented (custom rules, pattern matching, Editor for testing) and community evidence confirms security engineers write custom rules for org-specific patterns, which extends naturally to matching internal token/secret formats via pattern or regex-based rules. However, there is no explicit documentation showing how to author custom rules specifically within the Semgrep Secrets product (e.g., custom secret validators or format definitions) — the evidence only shows built-in secret detection (docs-8/9/10) and generic custom rule capability (docs-4/5/21), not a documented workflow for adding custom secret-format rules to Semgrep Secrets. Missing for 10: explicit docs/examples for authoring custom Semgrep Secrets rule types (validators, custom regex-based secret detectors), and independent confirmation of doing so for secrets specifically.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can write custom rules to determine what Semgrep detects in your repositories”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can write and test using the [Semgrep Editor]”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can write rules that: Automate code review comments. Identify secure coding violations. Scan configuration files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Secrets scans code to detect exposed API keys, passwords, and other credentials.”
   • [claimed-docs] “valid secrets are those that have been tested against a web service and confirmed to successfully grant resources or authentication. They ar…”
   • [community] “As a security consultant, I write custom Semgrep rules to match antipatterns unique to a codebase (e.g., controllers missing an authorizatio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks documents a configuration format for writing custom secret-detection rules, plus advanced features like composite rules and allowlists to reduce false positives, directly enabling org-specific token/secret pattern definitions. Missing for 10: no independent hands-on example of a custom rule being validated in production, and no dedicated deep-dive docs beyond the config-format mention.

   • [github] “Gitleaks offers a configuration format you can follow to write your own secret detection rules”
   • [github] “Gitleaks introduced composite rules, which are made up of a single "primary" rule and one or more auxiliary or `required` rules.”
   • [github] “In v8.28.0 Gitleaks introduced composite rules, which are made up of a single "primary" rule and one or more auxiliary or `required` rules.”
   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks introduced composite rules, which are made up of a single "primary" rule and one or more auxiliary or required rules.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Secret scanning

1. developerScan a repository and its full git history for hardcoded secrets and credentials

   weight 3 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep~partialclaimed4/10

   Semgrep Secrets is documented to scan code for exposed API keys, passwords, and credentials and validate them (semgrep-docs-8, semgrep-docs-9, semgrep-docs-43), and pre-commit hooks aim to prevent secrets from entering git history (semgrep-docs-16/46), but this only prevents future leaks — none of the evidence shows Semgrep actually scanning the full historical git commit log/diffs for previously committed secrets (a capability tools like gitleaks/trufflehog specialize in). missing for 10: explicit documentation or feature for scanning past git commits/history (not just current working tree), evidence of retroactive history-wide secret detection, independent confirmation this works in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Secrets scans code to detect exposed API keys, passwords, and other credentials.”
   • [claimed-docs] “valid secrets are those that have been tested against a web service and confirmed to successfully grant resources or authentication. They ar…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep saves security engineers time and effort by prioritizing valid leaked secrets and informs developer”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run semgrep when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking int…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The pre-commit framework can run `semgrep` when you commit changes. This is helpful in preventing secrets and security issues from leaking i…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed9/10

   Gitleaks' `git` command explicitly scans full git history via `git log -p`, and `dir`/`stdin` commands cover directory/file/stdin scanning for secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens, with hands-on example output showing detection working. missing for 10: no independent third-party benchmark of detection accuracy across large real-world repos.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos. Under the hood, gitleaks uses the `git log -p` command to scan patches.”
   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”
   • [github] “➜ git commit -m "this commit contains a secret" Detect hardcoded secrets.................................................Failed”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files. Example: `gitleaks dir -v path_to_directory_or…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. security-engineerScan non-git sources like S3 buckets, Docker images, and CI logs for leaked secrets

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   Semgrep Secrets is documented to scan code/repositories for exposed credentials, but nothing in the evidence pack shows support for scanning non-git sources like S3 buckets, Docker images, or CI logs — all scanning references are to codebases, folders, monorepos, or CI pipelines running against git-based projects.

   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Secrets scans code to detect exposed API keys, passwords, and other credentials.”
   • [claimed-docs] “valid secrets are those that have been tested against a web service and confirmed to successfully grant resources or authentication. They ar…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep saves security engineers time and effort by prioritizing valid leaked secrets and informs developer”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Secrets scans code to detect exposed API ke”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks supports scanning git repos, directories/files, and stdin, but there is no evidence of native support for scanning S3 buckets, Docker images, or CI logs as distinct source types; stdin streaming could theoretically pipe in arbitrary data but no documentation or examples confirm scanning these non-git sources.

   • [github] “The `git` command lets you scan local git repos.”
   • [github] “The `dir` (aliases include `files`, `directory`) command lets you scan directories and files.”
   • [github] “You can also stream data to gitleaks with the `stdin` command.”
   • [github] “Gitleaks is a tool for detecting secrets like passwords, API keys, and tokens in git repos, files, and whatever else you wanna throw at it v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. security-engineerHave detected secrets verified against the issuing service so I know which ones are live

   weight 2 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep✓fullclaimed8/10

   Semgrep Secrets explicitly performs validity checks by testing detected secrets against the issuing web service, distinguishing 'valid' (live, actively in use) secrets from invalid ones, and surfaces this in PR/MR comments to prioritize live secrets. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of validation accuracy and broader coverage details across secret types/providers.

   • [claimed-docs] “valid secrets are those that have been tested against a web service and confirmed to successfully grant resources or authentication. They ar…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep Secrets scans code to detect exposed API keys, passwords, and other credentials.”
   • [claimed-docs] “informs developers of valid secrets in their PRs and MRs by posting comments directly”
   • [claimed-docs] “Semgrep saves security engineers time and effort by prioritizing valid leaked secrets and informs developer”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack indicates Gitleaks or gitleaks-action performs live verification of detected secrets against the issuing service (e.g., checking if an API key is still active); its capabilities are limited to detection, allowlisting, baselines, and PR alerting.

   ⚑ flag

Ai triage

1. ai-native userUse AI to triage findings — explaining them, deduplicating, and flagging likely false positives

   weight 3 · round to Semgrep
   Semgrep~partialcommunity6/10

   Semgrep ships a native AI feature (Semgrep Assistant) explicitly described as 'contextual post-processing of findings...to further reduce noise by ~20%', and marketing docs claim combining 'AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation,' plus AI-powered detection for complex logic flaws — directly supporting AI-assisted false-positive reduction and triage. However, deduplication specifically is never mentioned, and the strongest independent evidence of AI triage in practice comes from a third-party tool built on Semgrep's SARIF output plus external LLMs (used at Microsoft) rather than the native Assistant, suggesting the first-party AI-triage feature is thin on independent corroboration. Missing for 10: explicit deduplication capability, deeper documentation of Assistant's explanation/false-positive-flagging behavior, independent hands-on evidence validating the native AI triage feature itself.

   • [github] “Contextual post-processing of findings with Semgrep Assistant (AI) to further reduce noise by ~20%”
   • [claimed-docs] “With AI-Powered Detection, you can automatically identify complex business logic flaws, such as IDORs and broken authorization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Combine AI reasoning with rule-based analysis for detection, triage, and remediation”
   • [community] “Built a tool using Semgrep's SARIF output plus prompted LLMs to help prioritize triage; used at Microsoft for the past year to help surface …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   No evidence of any AI-based triage, explanation, deduplication, or false-positive flagging feature; Gitleaks only offers manual allowlists, baselines, and composite rules for reducing noise, none of which use AI.

   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”
   • [github] “When using a baseline, gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline.”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://gitleaks.io/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://gitleaks.io/openapi.json, https://gitleaks.io/swagger.json, https://gitleaks.io/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Fp management

1. security-engineerBaseline or ignore existing and false-positive findings so only new issues alert

   weight 3 · round to Gitleaks
   Semgrep~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs mention a 'Triage findings' capability (alerts/tickets for tracking findings) and Semgrep Assistant's contextual post-processing to reduce noise by ~20%, implying some findings-management workflow, but there is no explicit evidence of baseline scanning (e.g., baseline-commit diffing), ignore-comments (nosemgrep), or a documented false-positive suppression/triage-state workflow. missing for 10: explicit baseline-commit/diff scanning documentation, .semgrepignore or inline nosemgrep suppression evidence, and a documented 'mark as false positive / ignored' triage state in the platform.

   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings * Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [claimed-docs] “Triage findings Send alerts and notifications or create tickets to track findings identified by Semgrep Code”
   • [github] “Contextual post-processing of findings with Semgrep Assistant (AI) to further reduce noise by ~20%”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Gitleaks✓fullclaimed8/10

   Gitleaks explicitly supports baseline files via --baseline-path so only new findings appear in reports, and allowlists let users suppress known false positives per-rule. This directly matches the triage-noise story of ignoring existing/false-positive findings so only new issues alert. Missing for 10: no evidence of a centralized/dashboard-based suppression workflow or independent third-party validation of baseline accuracy at scale.

   • [github] “When using a baseline, gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline.”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”
   • [github] “gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline”
   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerFilter and gate on findings by severity or confidence so low-value noise does not block builds

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Semgrep—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes general triage/noise features (AI post-processing to reduce noise, ticketing/alerts, reachability analysis) but never mentions severity levels, confidence scores, or a mechanism to filter/gate CI builds based on them. Missing for 10: explicit severity/confidence filtering flags (e.g., --severity), CI gating configuration based on severity/confidence thresholds, and documentation tying these to build pass/fail behavior.

   ⚑ flag

   Gitleaks—none0/10

   Gitleaks evidence shows allowlists to suppress false positives and baseline diffing to ignore old findings, but there is no mention of a severity or confidence scoring/classification system, nor any flag to gate builds based on such levels. This axis is a fair ask for a secret-scanning tool but the evidence pack shows no severity/confidence triage mechanism.

   • [github] “You can define multiple allowlists for a rule to reduce false positives. A finding will be ignored if _ANY_ [[rules.allowlists]] matches.”
   • [github] “When using a baseline, gitleaks will ignore any old findings that are present in the baseline.”
   • [github] “After running the detect command with the --baseline-path parameter, report output (findings.json) will only contain new issues.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag