fix(review): tighten mock placeholder carve-out to avoid secret-scan false negatives

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• A recent change added a broad \bmock\b placeholder term that short-circuited isPlaceholderSecretValue, causing generic secret assignments containing a separate mock token to be suppressed and creating a security-relevant false negative.
• The intent is to continue excluding clear lowercase-hyphenated fixture names from false positives while restoring detection for mixed-case or digit-bearing values that include mock.

Description

• Remove the broad \bmock\b entry from PLACEHOLDER_VALUE_PATTERN so values containing mock are no longer universally treated as placeholders.
• Add LOWERCASE_HYPHENATED_MOCK_FIXTURE_PATTERN to precisely match lowercase hyphenated mock fixture names and treat only those as placeholders.
• Update isPlaceholderSecretValue to consider the new LOWERCASE_HYPHENATED_MOCK_FIXTURE_PATTERN before excluding a match.
• Add unit tests covering mixed-case / digit-bearing mock-... credential values and a safety-gate regression to ensure such cases produce a generic_secret_assignment and a secret_leak finding (test/unit/secrets-scan.test.ts and test/unit/safety-wiring.test.ts).

Testing

• Ran git diff --check and the focused unit suite via npm test -- --run test/unit/secrets-scan.test.ts test/unit/safety-wiring.test.ts, and those tests passed.
• Attempted the full coverage run npm run test:coverage, which did not complete due to an unrelated recursion in test/unit/queue.test.ts producing a RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded.
• Attempted npm audit --audit-level=moderate, but the registry audit endpoint returned 403 Forbidden so the audit step could not be completed.

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-06 20:33:40 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This PR narrows a secret-scanner placeholder carve-out that had regressed detection: the prior broad `\bmock\b` term in PLACEHOLDER_VALUE_PATTERN caused any secret-shaped value containing the substring "mock" to be silently excluded, including real-looking mixed-case/digit-bearing credentials. The fix removes that broad term and replaces it with a narrow LOWERCASE_HYPHENATED_MOCK_FIXTURE_PATTERN (`^(?:[a-z]+-)*mock(?:-[a-z]+)*$`) that only exempts clearly-fixture-shaped, all-lowercase hyphenated mock names, restoring detection for `mock-aK9xQ2mZw7Ln4Rv8Pt3Bh6`-style values. The logic is correct and the new/updated unit tests (secrets-scan.test.ts, safety-wiring.test.ts) exercise both the exemption and the regression case end-to-end through secretLeakFinding and the gate.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/review/secrets-scan.ts:72 — the new pattern nests a `+` quantifier inside a `*`-quantified group (`(?:[a-z]+-)*`), which superficially resembles a ReDoS shape; on inspection the mandatory literal `-` separator forces a deterministic split at each hyphen so there's no actual exponential backtracking, but it'd be worth a comment noting why this is safe (or a quick fuzz/timing test) since a future edit could remove that separator and reintroduce real risk.
• test/unit/safety-wiring.test.ts:321-330 and test/unit/secrets-scan.test.ts:170-176 — the two new test cases are near-duplicates of each other (one in the safety-wiring integration test, one in the unit test); consider whether both are needed or if one could reference the other to avoid drift.
• No test verifies a case like `'mock-mock'` or a bare `'mock'` used as the whole value — not required given the 16+ char floor on the generic pattern, but worth a comment noting that constraint so a reader doesn't assume the new fixture pattern alone gates short values.
• Consider adding one test asserting that a lowercase-hyphenated value ending or starting with `mock` but containing digits (e.g. `mock-fixture-2`) is still treated as a fixture, to pin down the exact boundary of the new pattern versus the digit-bearing regression case.
• The header comment above LOWERCASE_HYPHENATED_MOCK_FIXTURE_PATTERN (secrets-scan.ts:70-71) could briefly note why the nested quantifier is ReDoS-safe (mandatory hyphen separator forces a unique split), preempting the exact concern a future reviewer or scanner will raise.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 51 registered-repo PR(s), 43 merged, 372 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 51 PR(s), 372 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Kotlin, MDX, Shell
• Official Gittensor activity: 51 PR(s), 372 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.49%. Comparing base (125aa00) to head (8a497ae).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3866   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.49%   93.49%           
=======================================
  Files         333      333           
  Lines       33196    33198    +2     
  Branches    12140    12141    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        31035    31037    +2     
  Misses       1530     1530           
  Partials      631      631           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/review/secrets-scan.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.