Code RadarLOCAL SAST GATE
AccountGitHubInstall Radar

CI/CD security gates: from local signal to shared gate.

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

Start this workflow locallySee workflow evidence
radar scan . --quick

What CI/CD security gates means here.

For code review in cicd, start with a local scan, inspect the finding evidence, repair the change, and promote only trusted signals into a shared pull-request gate.

Solution

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.
Solution

Start this workflow locally

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

Start this workflow locally

The problem this page helps clarify

The useful question is where CI/CD security gates changes the review loop: what enters the scan, who acts on a finding, and which evidence moves forward. SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.

  • Audience: Engineering teams turning trusted local findings into a repeatable pull-request policy.
  • Focus: SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.
  • Review question: What does CI/CD security gates cover in practice?

Coverage and concrete signals

For CI/CD security gates, inspect the concrete scope below instead of relying on a category label. The same finding identifiers locally and in GitHub Actions, with explicit fail-on behavior and artifacts.

  • Focus: SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.
  • Workflow: Workflow: SARIF · fail-on threshold · PR annotations · GitHub Actions
  • Coverage and concrete signals: SARIF, fail-on threshold, PR annotations, GitHub Actions
FocusExact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.Boundary
SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.The same finding identifiers locally and in GitHub Actions, with explicit fail-on behavior and artifacts.A CI gate is only as useful as the rules and threshold the team has validated on representative code.

From local signal to shared gate.

CI/CD security gates: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.

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 scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high

Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.

CI/CD security gates: 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. The same finding identifiers locally and in GitHub Actions, with explicit fail-on behavior and artifacts.

  • Workflow: SARIF · fail-on threshold · PR annotations · GitHub Actions
  • 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 CI/CD security gates when Engineering teams turning trusted local findings into a repeatable pull-request policy. Keep the boundary explicit: A CI gate is only as useful as the rules and threshold the team has validated on representative code.

Run the local proof before adopting a shared gate.

  • Good fit: Engineering teams turning trusted local findings into a repeatable pull-request policy.
  • Not a fit / do not overreach: A CI gate is only as useful as the rules and threshold the team has validated on representative code.

Questions to verify before rollout

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

What does CI/CD security gates cover in practice?

CI/CD security gates: The practical scope is SARIF upload, severity thresholds, reviewer-visible annotations, and a small gate that teams can explain.. Start with the listed entities or files and confirm the result on representative code.

Which evidence should I inspect for CI/CD security gates?

CI/CD security gates: Inspect The same finding identifiers locally and in GitHub Actions, with explicit fail-on behavior and artifacts. Keep the source location, rule or comparison context, and exported artifact together.

What should I not infer from CI/CD security gates?

CI/CD security gates: Do not infer universal coverage. A CI gate is only as useful as the rules and threshold the team has validated on representative code. Use the relevant comparison or workflow page to test the boundary before changing policy.

What should I try first for CI/CD security gates?

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

GitHub Actions: github actionsChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Docs: github actionsChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Feature: reportsChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.
Solution

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
InstallInstall Radar

Run a local scan on a real repository.

ProofSee sample report

Inspect the fields and formats in a sample finding.

WorkflowGitHub Actions security gate

Move trusted findings into a reviewable CI threshold.

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 workflow locallySee workflow evidence