docs: worked example for an alternative rule format under the §5.4 clarification#41
Open
eeee2345 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
The §5.4 rule-corpus clarification invites adopters to use the seed's CodeGuard worked example, fork it, or substitute another format that satisfies FR-037 and FR-041. Adopters with agentic-system targets (MCP servers, skill files, tool manifests) need a worked example for artifacts that don't map onto source-function units. This adds docs/worked-examples/example-alternative-rule-format.md walking one such substitution (ATR, MIT-licensed) and maps it to the same Detector FRs the CodeGuard example covers. The new file is a sibling of example-detection-rule.md, not a replacement. docs/README.md gains a small audience-map entry pointing readers picking a rule format at both worked examples.
santosomar
requested review from
jallbrit,
santosomar and
thomas-bartlett
and removed request for
santosomar and
thomas-bartlett
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The §5.4 rule-corpus clarification (spec.md line 450) invites adopters to use the seed's CodeGuard worked example, fork it, or substitute another format that satisfies FR-037 and FR-041. The current docs ship one worked example (
example-detection-rule.md, CodeGuard, source-function units). Adopters whose targets are agentic-system artifacts — MCP servers, skill files, tool manifests, IO traces — lack a sibling worked example for the case where the unit being checked is not a source function.This PR adds one such sibling. It walks an alternative open rule format (Agent Threat Rules, MIT-licensed, github.com/Agent-Threat-Rule/agent-threat-rules) and maps a sample rule to the same Detector FRs the CodeGuard worked example covers (FR-037, FR-041, FR-042, FR-043, FR-044, FR-045, FR-090, US-14). The framing is non-exclusive throughout: ATR is one example of a format that satisfies the §5.4 contract, not a recommendation against CodeGuard, and the docs note mixed corpora are valid.
Why this fits the docs conventions:
Files:
docs/worked-examples/example-alternative-rule-format.md(new, 92 lines)docs/README.md(5-line audience-map entry pointing at both worked examples)Context: I authored the ATR rule corpus. ATR has been merged into Cisco AI Defense's skill-scanner via PRs #79 and #99. This PR is independent of that work and improves the spec for any adopter picking a format, not the ATR project specifically; I would be glad to revise framing or drop ATR-specific references if the maintainers prefer a generic "non-CodeGuard worked example" with a different reference format.