Code Security Audit: Code and Change Review Assistance, Multi-turn Dialogue and Prompt Engineering

Data for this category comes primarily from project source code repositories, third-party dependency lists, static application security testing (SAST)

What data does this category use?

Data for this category comes primarily from project source code repositories, third-party dependency lists, static application security testing (SAST) tool output, and public vulnerability databases. Data updates trigger when project versions iterate or a single audit task completes, typically once per version or per project. Daily deliverable documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proof documents, repair suggestion lists, and retest records. Fields cover vulnerability IDs, impact scope, repair priority, associated code line numbers, and similar items. No uniform mandatory units apply.

The scattered data sources and specialized field structure of this category require multi-turn dialogue to define clear context isolation rules, to avoid mixing audit data from different projects. The update rhythm tied to project version iterations requires dividing dialogue context by task dimension, to ensure dialogue data from a single review does not spill over to other tasks. Multi-field audit documents require prompt engineering to preset field mapping logic, to reduce the cost of manually organizing specialized terminology. For time-consuming links such as dangerous function localization and data flow tracing, multi-turn dialogue must support gradual guidance to supplement context and narrow the troubleshooting scope step by step.

How to configure

Configuration ItemRecommended ValueRationale
chatIdBind the project's unique identifier as the valueEnsure context isolation for a single audit task, avoid cross-project data mixing
messagesOnly retain historical interaction content for the current taskMatch the project-update-aligned data rhythm, exclude irrelevant historical dialogue
variablesPreset as standard fields for code audit reportsAutomatically populate specialized fields such as vulnerability IDs and repair priorities, reduce manual organization work
Maximum context length8000–12000 tokenCover complete code snippets and tool output for a single audit, match the field volume of professional documents
Dialogue timeout duration600 secondsMatch the single-task time range for security audits, avoid interrupting valid dialogue mid-process

This configuration is adapted for FastGPT v4.17.0.

Three common misconfigurations

  • Symptom: Dialogue records cannot be isolated by project, cross-project audit data is mixed. Cause: chatId is not bound to the project's unique identifier, leading to shared context.
  • Symptom: Repair suggestions generated by the prompt do not match the fields in the actual audit document. Cause: Standard fields of the audit report are not bound via variables, leading to missing mapping.
  • Symptom: "No permission to operate this dialogue record" appears at the end of the dialogue. Cause: Permission isolation rules for dialogue context are not configured, leading to cross-user or cross-task access conflicts.

How to confirm the configuration is correct

  • Submit a code change review dialogue, check if chatId matches the current project identifier, confirm context isolation is active.
  • Call the fields bound via variables, check if the prompt automatically populates preset content such as vulnerability IDs and impact scope.
  • Simulate a timeout scenario, confirm the dialogue triggers a reasonable interruption prompt after 600 seconds, with no abnormal errors.
  • Attempt to switch the project identifier, confirm the new dialogue does not load historical messages from the old project, verifying normal context isolation.

The values provided here are common starting points, and should be evaluated against the reader's own samples.

Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.