{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_dryrun-security","slug":"dryrun-security","name":"Dryrun Security","type":"product","url":"https://www.dryrun.security","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/dryrun-security","categories":["code-review-security"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_0","uri":"capability://coding.automated.vulnerability.detection.in.pull.requests","name":"automated-vulnerability-detection-in-pull-requests","description":"Scans code changes in pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities, injection flaws, authentication issues, and other common security weaknesses using AI-powered pattern recognition. Flags issues before code review begins, reducing manual review burden.","intents":["I want to catch security vulnerabilities before they're merged into production","I need to identify common attack patterns in code changes automatically","I want to reduce the time spent on manual security code review"],"best_for":["development teams without dedicated AppSec engineers","teams using GitHub or GitLab","organizations wanting to shift security left"],"limitations":["Cannot detect runtime security issues or behavioral vulnerabilities","May produce false positives leading to alert fatigue if misconfigured","Limited to code review stage, does not cover infrastructure or deployment security","Effectiveness depends on proper configuration and rule tuning"],"requires":["GitHub or GitLab repository integration","Pull request workflow","Team adoption and review of flagged issues"],"input_types":["code diffs","pull request changes","source code"],"output_types":["vulnerability annotations","security findings with severity levels","inline code comments"],"categories":["coding","security","code-review"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_1","uri":"capability://security.security.misconfiguration.flagging","name":"security-misconfiguration-flagging","description":"Identifies insecure configurations in code such as hardcoded credentials, overly permissive access controls, weak cryptography, and unsafe API usage patterns. Provides context-aware recommendations for remediation.","intents":["I want to prevent hardcoded secrets from being committed to the repository","I need to catch insecure configuration patterns before deployment","I want to ensure compliance with security best practices in code"],"best_for":["teams implementing security best practices","organizations with compliance requirements","development teams new to security-focused code review"],"limitations":["May not catch context-dependent misconfigurations","Requires accurate configuration rules to avoid false positives","Cannot validate runtime behavior or actual security impact"],"requires":["Code repository with configuration files","Pull request integration","Configured security rules and policies"],"input_types":["configuration files","code containing security-sensitive operations","API calls and authentication code"],"output_types":["configuration warnings","remediation suggestions","severity-rated findings"],"categories":["security","code-review","compliance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_2","uri":"capability://code.review.contextual.security.annotations.in.code.review","name":"contextual-security-annotations-in-code-review","description":"Embeds security context and explanations directly into pull request comments and code review interfaces, making security findings immediately actionable without context switching. Provides developer-friendly explanations of why code is flagged.","intents":["I want security feedback right where I'm reviewing code, not in a separate tool","I need to understand why a security issue matters in plain language","I want to reduce friction in the code review process by keeping everything in one place"],"best_for":["development teams using GitHub or GitLab","organizations wanting to reduce tool fragmentation","teams prioritizing developer experience in security workflows"],"limitations":["Limited to platforms with native PR comment APIs (GitHub, GitLab)","Cannot provide deep architectural security analysis","Effectiveness depends on developer engagement with annotations"],"requires":["GitHub or GitLab integration","Pull request workflow","Proper permissions to post comments on PRs"],"input_types":["code changes","security findings"],"output_types":["inline PR comments","annotated code regions","security context explanations"],"categories":["code-review","security","developer-experience"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_3","uri":"capability://security.ai.driven.security.pattern.recognition","name":"ai-driven-security-pattern-recognition","description":"Uses machine learning and pattern matching to identify subtle security vulnerabilities and anti-patterns that developers often miss in manual code review. Learns from common vulnerability patterns to improve detection accuracy.","intents":["I want to catch security issues that are easy to overlook in manual review","I need to identify emerging vulnerability patterns in our codebase","I want AI to supplement human security expertise"],"best_for":["teams without security expertise","organizations handling sensitive data","development teams wanting to improve security posture"],"limitations":["AI models may have blind spots for novel or highly context-specific vulnerabilities","False positive rates vary based on codebase characteristics","Requires sufficient training data to be effective","Cannot replace human security review for critical systems"],"requires":["Code repository with sufficient history","Integration with version control system","Feedback loop for model improvement"],"input_types":["source code","code diffs","historical vulnerability data"],"output_types":["vulnerability predictions","risk scores","pattern-based findings"],"categories":["security","ai","code-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_4","uri":"capability://security.security.review.triage.automation","name":"security-review-triage-automation","description":"Automatically categorizes and prioritizes security findings by severity, type, and exploitability, reducing the manual effort required to triage security issues. Routes findings to appropriate reviewers based on severity and expertise.","intents":["I want to focus on the most critical security issues first","I need to reduce time spent sorting through security findings","I want to automate the initial triage of security issues"],"best_for":["teams with high volume of code changes","organizations with limited AppSec resources","development teams wanting to prioritize security work"],"limitations":["Severity ratings may not reflect actual business impact","Cannot account for context-specific risk factors","Requires accurate configuration to avoid misprioritization"],"requires":["Security findings from scanning tools","Configured severity and priority rules","Team structure for routing findings"],"input_types":["security findings","vulnerability metadata","code context"],"output_types":["prioritized finding lists","severity classifications","routing assignments"],"categories":["security","workflow-automation","productivity"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_5","uri":"capability://integration.github.gitlab.native.integration","name":"github-gitlab-native-integration","description":"Seamlessly integrates with GitHub and GitLab workflows, triggering security analysis automatically on pull requests and displaying results natively within the platform's code review interface. No external tool switching required.","intents":["I want security checks to run automatically on every pull request","I need security feedback without leaving my code review platform","I want to integrate security into our existing development workflow"],"best_for":["teams using GitHub or GitLab","organizations wanting minimal workflow disruption","development teams prioritizing tool consolidation"],"limitations":["Only supports GitHub and GitLab (not Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, etc.)","Requires appropriate repository permissions","Integration quality depends on platform API stability"],"requires":["GitHub or GitLab repository","Proper OAuth/token authentication","Repository webhook configuration"],"input_types":["pull request events","code changes","repository metadata"],"output_types":["PR status checks","inline comments","review annotations"],"categories":["integration","developer-experience","workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_6","uri":"capability://security.developer.friendly.security.explanations","name":"developer-friendly-security-explanations","description":"Translates technical security findings into clear, actionable explanations that help developers understand the vulnerability, its impact, and how to fix it. Provides remediation guidance without requiring deep security expertise.","intents":["I want to understand why this code is a security risk","I need clear guidance on how to fix security issues","I want to learn about security best practices while reviewing code"],"best_for":["development teams with varying security expertise","organizations investing in security culture","teams wanting to educate developers about security"],"limitations":["Explanations may oversimplify complex security concepts","Cannot provide guidance for highly context-specific vulnerabilities","Effectiveness depends on developer engagement"],"requires":["Security findings with sufficient metadata","Well-written explanation templates","Developer willingness to learn"],"input_types":["security findings","vulnerability metadata","code context"],"output_types":["plain-language explanations","remediation steps","educational resources"],"categories":["security","education","developer-experience"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_dryrun-security__cap_7","uri":"capability://security.false.positive.reduction.through.configuration","name":"false-positive-reduction-through-configuration","description":"Allows teams to configure security rules, suppress known false positives, and customize detection sensitivity to match their specific codebase and risk tolerance. Reduces alert fatigue through intelligent filtering.","intents":["I want to reduce false positives in security findings","I need to customize security rules for our specific tech stack","I want to suppress known safe patterns that trigger false alerts"],"best_for":["teams with specific security requirements","organizations with mature security practices","development teams wanting to fine-tune detection"],"limitations":["Requires security expertise to configure properly","Misconfiguration can lead to missed vulnerabilities","Maintenance burden as codebase evolves"],"requires":["Access to security rule configuration","Understanding of security concepts","Regular review and updates of rules"],"input_types":["security rules","false positive examples","configuration policies"],"output_types":["customized rule sets","suppression lists","adjusted detection sensitivity"],"categories":["security","configuration","customization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":43,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["GitHub or GitLab repository integration","Pull request workflow","Team adoption and review of flagged issues","Code repository with configuration files","Pull request integration","Configured security rules and policies","GitHub or GitLab integration","Proper permissions to post comments on PRs","Code repository with sufficient history","Integration with version control system"],"failure_modes":["Cannot detect runtime security issues or behavioral vulnerabilities","May produce false positives leading to alert fatigue if misconfigured","Limited to code review stage, does not cover infrastructure or deployment security","Effectiveness depends on proper configuration and rule tuning","May not catch context-dependent misconfigurations","Requires accurate configuration rules to avoid false positives","Cannot validate runtime behavior or actual security impact","Limited to platforms with native PR comment APIs (GitHub, GitLab)","Cannot provide deep architectural security analysis","Effectiveness depends on developer engagement with annotations","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.39999999999999997,"quality":0.77,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.283Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.548Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=dryrun-security","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=dryrun-security"}},"signature":"EtZgtaGE8mNtdseVb5ITjefQMPI1wnPR7G0LnGyM+aJwnMYirjrxjseb6QKxhA2iUfqHNn58XvpYzi8YDZQBAw==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T06:16:31.896Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/dryrun-security","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/dryrun-security","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=dryrun-security","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}