Code RadarLOCAL SAST GATE
AccountGitHubInstall Radar

Cline security review with Code Radar.

See how Cline fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.

Start this integrationReview MCP setup
radar scan . --quick

What Cline means here.

Use Code Radar with Cline by scanning the repository locally, exposing structured findings through MCP or repair prompts, rescanning the change, and adding CI only when the signal is trusted.

Integration

Evidence to inspect

Verify the input scope, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

CriterionEvidence to inspectBoundary
Input scopeSelected files, configuration, scan mode, and enabled rules.Only included paths and configured checks are evaluated.
Finding detailFile, line, rule ID, severity, explanation, and repair direction.Illustrative output is not a result from your repository.
Workflow handoffLocal result, report format, agent context, and optional CI signal.Enable exports or CI only when the workflow needs them.
Decision fitUse the same criteria on a real repository before choosing a plan or tool.No universal winner or guaranteed outcome is claimed.
Integration

Start this integration

Verify the input scope, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

Start this integration

The problem this page helps clarify

The useful question is where Cline changes the review loop: what enters the scan, who acts on a finding, and which evidence moves forward. A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.

  • Audience: Teams using Cline that want scanner-backed context before an agent proposes or repairs code.
  • Focus: A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.
  • Review question: What does Cline cover in practice?

Coverage and concrete signals

For Cline, inspect the concrete scope below instead of relying on a category label. MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect.

  • Focus: A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.
  • Workflow: Workflow: Cline · MCP · scan_project_summary · fix_prompt · rescan
  • Coverage and concrete signals: Cline, MCP, scan_project_summary, fix_prompt, rescan
FocusExact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.Boundary
A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect.Code Radar supplies deterministic findings and MCP context; Cline remains responsible for edits and explanations.

From local signal to shared gate.

Cline: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.

StepCommand or actionDecision
1Run a quick local scanIs the signal useful?
2Inspect and repair findingsIs the fix specific and reproducible?
3Export portable evidenceDoes the reviewer need SARIF, JSON, or HTML?
4Promote the trusted threshold to CIWhich severity should block a pull request?
radar mcp install all
radar mcp doctor
radar scan . --quick

Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.

Cline: A useful result must be explainable to a developer and portable to the next review surface. Inspect the concrete evidence below before changing team policy. MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect.

  • Workflow: Cline · MCP · scan_project_summary · fix_prompt · rescan
  • Exact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.
  • Terminal output, SARIF, JSON, or HTML artifacts generated from the same finding set.
  • Source stays in the workspace or CI runner where the scan executes.

Good fit and limits

Use Cline when Teams using Cline that want scanner-backed context before an agent proposes or repairs code. Keep the boundary explicit: Code Radar supplies deterministic findings and MCP context; Cline remains responsible for edits and explanations.

Run the local proof before adopting a shared gate.

  • Good fit: Teams using Cline that want scanner-backed context before an agent proposes or repairs code.
  • Not a fit / do not overreach: Code Radar supplies deterministic findings and MCP context; Cline remains responsible for edits and explanations.

Questions to verify before rollout

These questions keep the decision tied to observable evidence rather than a broad product promise.

What does Cline cover in practice?

Cline: The practical scope is A repository-local scan exposed through MCP summaries, finding explanations, repair prompts, and a deliberate rescan.. Start with the listed entities or files and confirm the result on representative code.

Which evidence should I inspect for Cline?

Cline: Inspect MCP setup and doctor output, scanner-backed finding context, and the same report evidence a human reviewer can inspect. Keep the source location, rule or comparison context, and exported artifact together.

What should I not infer from Cline?

Cline: Do not infer universal coverage. Code Radar supplies deterministic findings and MCP context; Cline remains responsible for edits and explanations. Use the relevant comparison or workflow page to test the boundary before changing policy.

What should I try first for Cline?

Cline: Start with a local run, review one real finding, then choose the linked report, agent, CI, or trust workflow that matches the next decision.

MCP: mcpChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Docs: mcpChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Use case: secure coding agentsChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.
Integration

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
WorkflowMCP agent workflow

Give coding agents structured finding context.

DocsMCP setup docs

Connect a coding agent to structured findings.

Use caseSecure coding agents with local MCP review context.

MCP tools let coding agents ask Radar what changed, what is risky, and what should be fixed first without guessing from raw terminal output.

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Start with one local scan, inspect the evidence, and expand to reports, agents, or CI only when the signal is useful.

Start this integrationReview MCP setup