Files
strix/strix/tools/finish/tool.py
T
Ahmed Allam 1c1fa49961 refactor(tools): split wait_for_message into respond_to_user + wait_for_agents
One tool was doing three jobs (wait on the user, wait on other agents, and
- wrongly - wait for a long-running command), so the driver had to guess which
one an agent meant and used parent_id as the proxy: the root waits for a human,
everyone else waits for agents. That proxy is wrong, since the user can message
any agent from the TUI's agent tree.

Tool identity now carries the intent, and the coordinator records it as a
wait_kind that survives snapshot/restore:

  respond_to_user  -> wait_kind="user",   never auto-resumed (root or not)
  wait_for_agents  -> wait_kind="agents", auto-resumed on a 300s timer
  recovery exhaust -> wait_kind="stalled"

respond_to_user fuses the message and the yield into one call, so there is no
way to answer and then forget to stop - the two-step that gpt-4o-mini skipped
2/2 in live testing. Plain text still renders as before.

Auto-resume is also bounded now: an agent that re-parks after every timeout
burned a model turn every 300s for the rest of the scan (and, since parked
children notify their parent, spammed the parent's inbox on the same cycle).
After _MAX_IDLE_AUTO_RESUMES it stays parked until a real message arrives.
2026-08-02 02:15:51 +03:00

292 lines
12 KiB
Python

"""``finish_scan`` — root-agent termination + executive report persistence."""
from __future__ import annotations
import asyncio
import json
import logging
from typing import Any
from agents import RunContextWrapper, function_tool
from strix.core.agents import coordinator_from_context
logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
def _do_finish(
*,
parent_id: str | None,
executive_summary: str,
methodology: str,
technical_analysis: str,
recommendations: str,
) -> dict[str, Any]:
if parent_id is not None:
return {
"success": False,
"error": (
"This tool can only be used by the root/main agent. "
"If you are a subagent, use agent_finish instead"
),
}
errors: list[str] = []
if not executive_summary.strip():
errors.append("Executive summary cannot be empty")
if not methodology.strip():
errors.append("Methodology cannot be empty")
if not technical_analysis.strip():
errors.append("Technical analysis cannot be empty")
if not recommendations.strip():
errors.append("Recommendations cannot be empty")
if errors:
return {"success": False, "error": "Validation failed", "errors": errors}
try:
from strix.report.state import get_global_report_state
report_state = get_global_report_state()
if report_state is None:
logger.warning("No global report state; scan results not persisted")
return {
"success": True,
"scan_completed": True,
"message": "Scan completed (not persisted)",
"warning": "Results could not be persisted - report state unavailable",
}
report_state.update_scan_final_fields(
executive_summary=executive_summary.strip(),
methodology=methodology.strip(),
technical_analysis=technical_analysis.strip(),
recommendations=recommendations.strip(),
)
vuln_count = len(report_state.vulnerability_reports)
except (ImportError, AttributeError) as e:
logger.exception("finish_scan persistence failed")
return {"success": False, "error": f"Failed to complete scan: {e!s}"}
else:
logger.info(
"finish_scan: completed scan with %d vulnerability report(s)",
vuln_count,
)
return {
"success": True,
"scan_completed": True,
"message": "Scan completed successfully",
"vulnerabilities_found": vuln_count,
}
@function_tool(timeout=60)
async def finish_scan(
ctx: RunContextWrapper,
executive_summary: str,
methodology: str,
technical_analysis: str,
recommendations: str,
) -> str:
"""Finalize the scan — persist the customer-facing report.
**Root-agent only.** Subagents must call ``agent_finish`` from the
multi-agent graph tools instead. Calling this finalizes everything:
1. Verifies you are the root agent.
2. Writes the four narrative sections to the scan record.
3. Marks the scan completed and stops execution.
**This is a terminal action, not a status probe.** Whatever you pass
is persisted VERBATIM as the final, customer-facing report and then
execution stops. There is no draft mode and no second chance: never
submit placeholder, provisional, or "checking if done" text in any
field, and never call ``finish_scan`` to poll whether subagents are
done (use ``view_agent_graph`` / ``wait_for_agents`` for that).
Call it exactly ONCE, only when every field holds genuine, finished
assessment prose.
**Pre-flight checklist (mandatory — do not skip):**
1. **Call ``view_agent_graph`` first.** Inspect every entry in the
summary. If ANY agent is in ``running`` / ``waiting`` state,
you MUST NOT call ``finish_scan`` yet —
wrap them up first via ``send_message_to_agent`` (ask them to
finish), ``wait_for_agents`` (block until their report
arrives), or ``stop_agent`` (graceful cancel). Only ``completed``
/ ``crashed`` / ``stopped`` agents are safe to leave behind.
Calling ``finish_scan`` while children are alive orphans their
work and produces an incomplete report.
2. It's a good idea to call ``list_reports`` before finishing to
review every finding filed in this scan (use ``get_report`` for
full detail on any of them) so your ``executive_summary`` /
``technical_analysis`` are grounded in what was actually reported
— don't invent or omit findings. All vulnerabilities you found are
filed via ``create_vulnerability_report`` — or, for known-CVE
dependency findings, ``create_dependency_report`` (un-reported
findings are not tracked and not credited). A dependency CVE
already filed via ``create_dependency_report`` counts as reported;
it does NOT need re-filing here and does NOT block finishing.
3. Don't double-report — one report per distinct vulnerability.
4. **Attack-chaining gate.** Do NOT finish until you have genuinely
considered chaining the confirmed findings into higher-impact,
end-to-end attack paths and tested every plausibly-related
combination. You may rule out combinations you can confidently
call unrelated — note why instead of padding chains. Any
validated chain must already be filed via
``create_vulnerability_report`` — a demonstrated end-to-end chain
is a PoC-backed vulnerability, so it uses that tool even when one
link is a dependency CVE (the standalone CVE stays in its own
``create_dependency_report``) — and surfaced prominently in
``executive_summary`` / ``technical_analysis``. Finding no real
chain after a serious attempt is acceptable; skipping the
chaining reasoning, or ignoring a plausibly-related combination,
is not.
**Calling this multiple times overwrites the previous report.**
Make the single call comprehensive.
**Report output rules** (this content may be rendered into generated
reports):
- Never mention internal infrastructure: no local/absolute paths
(``/workspace/...``), no agent names, no sandbox/orchestrator/
tooling references, no system prompts, no model-internal errors.
Never leak internal identifiers (proxy request IDs, internal
vulnerability report IDs, or any system-generated IDs) into any
field.
- Tone: formal, third-person, objective, concise. This is a
consultant deliverable, not an engineering log.
- Each section has a specific role:
- ``executive_summary`` — for non-technical leadership. Risk
posture, business impact (data exposure / compliance /
reputation), notable criticals, overarching remediation
theme.
- ``methodology`` — frameworks followed (OWASP WSTG, PTES,
OSSTMM, NIST), engagement type (black/gray/white box), scope
and constraints, categories of testing performed. **No**
internal execution detail.
- ``technical_analysis`` — consolidated findings overview with
severity model and systemic root causes. Reference individual
vuln reports for repro steps; don't duplicate raw evidence.
- ``recommendations`` — prioritized actions grouped by urgency
(Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term), each with concrete
remediation steps. End with retest/validation guidance.
- **Formatting — use markdown in every field.** These fields may be
rendered into generated reports, so structure them clearly: lead
each section with a short ``# Heading``, use ``**bold**`` for labels/emphasis,
``inline code`` for identifiers/paths/parameters, bullet or
numbered lists for enumerations, and fenced code blocks
(```` ```language ````) for any code/payload excerpts. Never emit
one flat wall of prose or leave code unformatted.
- If **zero** vulnerabilities were found, say so plainly and
characterize the posture positively; ``technical_analysis`` should
summarize the areas tested and confirm no issues, and
``recommendations`` should focus on general hardening.
Example (abbreviated — mirror this structure, not the wording)::
executive_summary:
# Executive Summary
An external assessment of the **Acme Customer Portal**
identified multiple weaknesses that could lead to
unauthorized access to customer data.
**Overall risk posture:** Elevated.
**Key findings**
- Confirmed SSRF in a URL-preview feature reaching internal
network ranges.
- Broken tenant isolation enabling cross-tenant data access.
**Business impact**
- Potential exposure of customer records across tenants.
methodology:
# Methodology
Conducted per the **OWASP WSTG**.
**Engagement type:** Gray-box external test.
**Scope:** `https://app.acme.example`, `.../api/v1/`.
**Activities:** recon, authn/session review, authorization
and tenant-isolation testing, input/SSRF testing.
technical_analysis:
# Technical Analysis
**Severity model** reflects exploitability x impact.
1. **SSRF in URL preview** (Critical) — insufficient
destination validation; reaches link-local addresses.
2. **Broken tenant isolation** (High) — object identifiers
accepted without ownership checks.
**Systemic themes:** authorization enforced inconsistently;
no deny-by-default egress policy.
recommendations:
# Recommendations
**Immediate**
1. Remediate SSRF: enforce a destination allowlist,
deny-by-default, re-validate on every redirect hop.
**Short-term**
2. Centralize authorization with deny-by-default middleware.
**Retest & validation:** re-test immediate items to confirm
SSRF and tenant-isolation controls hold.
Args:
executive_summary: Business-level summary for leadership.
methodology: Frameworks, scope, and approach.
technical_analysis: Consolidated findings + systemic themes.
recommendations: Prioritized, actionable remediation.
"""
inner = ctx.context if isinstance(ctx.context, dict) else {}
coordinator = coordinator_from_context(inner)
me = inner.get("agent_id")
parent_id = inner.get("parent_id")
if coordinator is not None and parent_id is None and me is not None:
active_agents = await coordinator.active_agents_except(me)
if active_agents and coordinator.reserve_stopped:
active_agents = []
else:
active_agents = []
if active_agents:
return json.dumps(
{
"success": False,
"scan_completed": False,
"error": (
"Cannot finish scan while child agents are still active. "
"Wait for completion, send them finish instructions, or stop them first"
),
"active_agents": active_agents,
},
ensure_ascii=False,
default=str,
)
result = await asyncio.to_thread(
_do_finish,
parent_id=parent_id,
executive_summary=executive_summary,
methodology=methodology,
technical_analysis=technical_analysis,
recommendations=recommendations,
)
if (
result.get("success")
and result.get("scan_completed")
and coordinator is not None
and isinstance(me, str)
):
await coordinator.set_status(me, "completed")
return json.dumps(result, ensure_ascii=False, default=str)