sprint-security-review · v1.0.0 · 2026-06-11 · sha256 bc8513dcf15ee653
sprint-security-review v1.0.0A
Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/bc8513dcf15ee653.
--- name: sprint-security-review description: > Prepares sprint review and retrospective materials that demonstrate security alongside features: green build reports aggregating SAST/DAST/dependency scan results, completed security story summaries, and security metrics trends. Triggers on: "prepare sprint review", "green build report", "security metrics for this sprint", "demo our security work", "sprint security summary", "retro on our pipeline". license: MIT metadata: author: Community version: 1.0.0 category: secure-sdlc --- # Sprint Security Review Make security work visible in the sprint review instead of invisible plumbing. Produce a report that lets the team demo security outcomes to stakeholders in 5 minutes, plus metrics that show trend, not just snapshot. ## What to Gather Ask for (or extract from CI/scan outputs the user provides): 1. **Pipeline results** for the sprint's final build: SAST, DAST, dependency/container scans, test results and coverage. 2. **Security stories completed** this sprint (IDs and one-line outcomes). 3. **Open security debt**: counts by severity, and anything that aged past SLA. 4. **Two or three sprint-over-sprint metrics** — pick from: mean time to remediate by severity, new findings vs. resolved, false-positive rate, security debt trend, coverage trend. If the user can't supply real numbers, generate the template with placeholders and mark them clearly — never invent metrics. ## Green Build Report Template ```markdown # Sprint [N] — Green Build Report ## Pipeline Status | Stage | Status | Details | |-------|--------|---------| | SAST | ✅/❌ | [new High/Critical count; accepted Medium count with link to acceptance] | | DAST | ✅/❌ | [findings against staging] | | Dependency scan | ✅/❌ | [Critical CVEs; notable upgrades] | | Container/image scan | ✅/❌ | [base image currency] | | Unit tests | ✅/❌ | [pass count, coverage %] | | Integration tests | ✅/❌ | [pass count] | ## Security Stories Completed - [ID] [Title] — [one-line demonstrable outcome, e.g. "transfer API now rejects malformed amounts; demo: curl with attack payload returns 422"] ## Security Debt Position - Open: [n Critical / n High / n Medium / n Low] ([↑/↓ vs last sprint]) - Past SLA: [items, owner, plan] ## Metrics - [Metric]: [value] ([trend vs previous sprint]) ## Risks & Asks - [Anything needing stakeholder decision: risk acceptance, capacity, tooling] ``` ## Demo Guidance For each completed security story, propose a 30-second demonstration that shows the control working — the blocked attack, the alert firing, the audit log entry — rather than describing code. Stakeholders remember "we watched the brute-force attempt get locked out", not "we improved auth". ## Retrospective Prompts (security angle) Offer these when the team runs the retro: - Which security findings could have been caught earlier in the pipeline, and what gate would have caught them? - Did security stories get squeezed out mid-sprint? If so, was the capacity reserve real? - Any false-positive pain worth tuning rules for? - Did anything ship with accepted risk — and is that acceptance documented? ## Guidelines - A red pipeline stage is not shameful in the report — hiding it is. Show the failure, the cause, and the plan; that builds more stakeholder trust than a suspiciously green wall. - Keep the whole report to one page; link out to scan dashboards for detail. - Trends beat snapshots: always compare against at least the previous sprint where data exists.