Skip to content

adds ability to specify custom agent source code#84

Open
bhsu22 wants to merge 4 commits intoawslabs:mainfrom
bhsu22:toolbox-src
Open

adds ability to specify custom agent source code#84
bhsu22 wants to merge 4 commits intoawslabs:mainfrom
bhsu22:toolbox-src

Conversation

@bhsu22
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@bhsu22 bhsu22 commented Apr 7, 2026

Description of changes:
Instead of using one of the preset patterns in patterns/, you can deploy your own agent code from a custom source directory. Set the source field in config.yaml to point to externally created agent source code. Updates config to include an optional source option.

Tested deployments using patterns and source directory.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

@bhsu22 bhsu22 requested review from a team and kaleko April 7, 2026 18:42
@github-actions github-actions bot added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation infrastructure labels Apr 7, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions bot commented Apr 7, 2026

Latest scan for commit: 642f490 | Updated: 2026-04-07 18:46:52 UTC

Security Scan Results

Scan Metadata

  • Project: ASH
  • Scan executed: 2026-04-07T18:46:38+00:00
  • ASH version: 3.2.2

Summary

Scanner Results

The table below shows findings by scanner, with status based on severity thresholds and dependencies:

Column Explanations:

Severity Levels (S/C/H/M/L/I):

  • Suppressed (S): Security findings that have been explicitly suppressed/ignored and don't affect the scanner's pass/fail status
  • Critical (C): The most severe security vulnerabilities requiring immediate remediation (e.g., SQL injection, remote code execution)
  • High (H): Serious security vulnerabilities that should be addressed promptly (e.g., authentication bypasses, privilege escalation)
  • Medium (M): Moderate security risks that should be addressed in normal development cycles (e.g., weak encryption, input validation issues)
  • Low (L): Minor security concerns with limited impact (e.g., information disclosure, weak recommendations)
  • Info (I): Informational findings for awareness with minimal security risk (e.g., code quality suggestions, best practice recommendations)

Other Columns:

  • Time: Duration taken by each scanner to complete its analysis
  • Action: Total number of actionable findings at or above the configured severity threshold that require attention

Scanner Results:

  • PASSED: Scanner found no security issues at or above the configured severity threshold - code is clean for this scanner
  • FAILED: Scanner found security vulnerabilities at or above the threshold that require attention and remediation
  • MISSING: Scanner could not run because required dependencies/tools are not installed or available
  • SKIPPED: Scanner was intentionally disabled or excluded from this scan
  • ERROR: Scanner encountered an execution error and could not complete successfully

Severity Thresholds (Thresh Column):

  • CRITICAL: Only Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
  • HIGH: High and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
  • MEDIUM (MED): Medium, High, and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
  • LOW: Low, Medium, High, and Critical severity findings cause scanner to fail
  • ALL: Any finding of any severity level causes scanner to fail

Threshold Source: Values in parentheses indicate where the threshold is configured:

  • (g) = global: Set in the global_settings section of ASH configuration
  • (c) = config: Set in the individual scanner configuration section
  • (s) = scanner: Default threshold built into the scanner itself

Statistics calculation:

  • All statistics are calculated from the final aggregated SARIF report
  • Suppressed findings are counted separately and do not contribute to actionable findings
  • Scanner status is determined by comparing actionable findings to the threshold
Scanner S C H M L I Time Action Result Thresh
bandit 0 0 0 0 0 0 676ms 0 PASSED MED (g)
cdk-nag 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.2s 0 PASSED MED (g)
cfn-nag 0 0 0 0 0 0 5ms 0 PASSED MED (g)
checkov 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6s 0 PASSED MED (g)
detect-secrets 0 0 0 0 0 0 665ms 0 PASSED MED (g)
grype 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.2s 0 PASSED MED (g)
npm-audit 0 0 0 0 0 0 179ms 0 PASSED MED (g)
opengrep 14 0 0 0 0 0 25.9s 0 PASSED MED (g)
semgrep 14 0 0 0 0 0 19.6s 0 PASSED MED (g)
syft 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9s 0 PASSED MED (g)

@bhsu22 bhsu22 requested a review from iprivit April 7, 2026 20:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation infrastructure

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant