What is the fastest path for Code Radar report formats?
Code Radar report formats include terminal summaries for humans, SARIF for GitHub code scanning, JSON for automation, and HTML for durable review artifacts.
Docs
Security Report Formats
Export SARIF reports, JSON security scan reports, HTML code security reports, and terminal evidence for review, CI, GitHub code scanning, and automation.
Direct answer
Security Report Formats
Export SARIF reports, JSON security scan reports, HTML code security reports, and terminal evidence for review, CI, GitHub code scanning, and automation.
Which commands matter first for Code Radar report formats?
Start with `radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high` and `radar scan . --format html > radar.html`. These commands keep implementation proof close to the repository instead of turning the docs page into a generic product description.
What evidence confirms Code Radar report formats works?
Confirm SARIF alerts, JSON fields, HTML finding detail, terminal summaries, and the same finding identifiers across formats. This evidence should be visible before moving from documentation to a paid or shared workflow.
What should the reader avoid for Code Radar report formats?
Do not treat report export as value by itself; the report must help reviewers decide what to fix or block. Next step: Use the sample report for evidence review, then add GitHub Actions when SARIF should become pull-request evidence.
Content decision bridge
Turn report export workflow into a product decision.
Readers on Security Report Formats need a short route from answer-seeking to proof, rollout, and purchase evidence. Export SARIF reports, JSON security scan reports, HTML code security reports, and terminal evidence for review, CI, GitHub code scanning, and automation.
Verify the proof surface.
Security Report Formats should lead to product proof, not only more reading. For this page, proof means SARIF, JSON, HTML, and terminal evidence that a reviewer can inspect.
sarif scannerhtml code security report
Inspect reportApply the repeat workflow.
Security Report Formats becomes useful when the reader can repeat the workflow from the guide on a real repository. Here, rollout means report artifacts that move through humans, GitHub code scanning, and automation.
developer first sastlocal security review tool
Compare reportsChoose the paid boundary.
Security Report Formats should create a purchase path only when the product owns the next repeated job. For this intent, buying is justified by repeat exports, CI evidence, and workflow ownership beyond Free Preview.
repository security gateteam sast pricing
Review report plansFormats
Terminal is for humans. SARIF is for code scanning. JSON is for automation. HTML is for review artifacts.
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high
radar scan . --format html > radar.htmlImplementation FAQ
Confirm the command, expected evidence, failure boundary, and next workflow before treating the task as complete.
What is the fastest path for Code Radar report formats?
Code Radar report formats include terminal summaries for humans, SARIF for GitHub code scanning, JSON for automation, and HTML for durable review artifacts.
Which commands matter first for Code Radar report formats?
Start with `radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high` and `radar scan . --format html > radar.html`. These commands keep implementation proof close to the repository instead of turning the docs page into a generic product description.
What evidence confirms Code Radar report formats works?
Confirm SARIF alerts, JSON fields, HTML finding detail, terminal summaries, and the same finding identifiers across formats. This evidence should be visible before moving from documentation to a paid or shared workflow.
What should the reader avoid for Code Radar report formats?
Do not treat report export as value by itself; the report must help reviewers decide what to fix or block. Next step: Use the sample report for evidence review, then add GitHub Actions when SARIF should become pull-request evidence.