🛡️ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix sensitive data leakage in public share export endpoints

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: HIGH
💡 Vulnerability: Unauthenticated share endpoints for SQL, Reversing Markdown, and LLM Prompts exposed raw unredacted JSON DB snapshots. While the core JSON share endpoint correctly redacted fields like comment and example_value, downstream formats were bypassing this sanitization.
🎯 Impact: Attackers could obtain internal schema comments or sensitive sample values embedded in SQL comments or LLM prompts via a public share link, leading to potential data leakage.
🔧 Fix: Wrapped data.snapshot_json calls centrally in typing.cast(dict, _redact_sensitive_snapshot_fields(...)) before dispatching the payload to formatting generators.
✅ Verification: Ran full pytest test suite locally to confirm the changes did not break the downstream renderers and effectively mask the required keys.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 4672179474806428827 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7699613499364db24e17a5b145928c9c10e6103b.

• Head SHA: 7699613499364db24e17a5b145928c9c10e6103b

• Workflow run: 29580990738

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file: sentinel.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: sentinel.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: share.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: share.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 7699613499364db24e17a5b145928c9c10e6103b
• Workflow run: 29580990738
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7699613499364db24e17a5b145928c9c10e6103b.

• Head SHA: 7699613499364db24e17a5b145928c9c10e6103b

• Workflow run: 29580990738

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file: sentinel.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: sentinel.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend: share.py"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend: share.py"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]

Loading