# Security Review Report

**Branch**: feat-183-hotspot-and-risk-scoring -> main
**Date**: 2026-05-25T14:29

## Issues in Your Changes (BLOCKING)

### CRITICAL
(none)

### HIGH
(none)

## Issues in Code You Touched (Should Fix)
(none)

## Pre-existing Issues (Not Blocking)
(none)

## Suggestions (Lower Confidence)

- **`debug_assert!` only for `half_life_days` invariant** - `scoring.rs:47`, `scoring.rs:81` (Confidence: 65%) -- Both `decay_weight` and `compute_file_risk_scores` are `pub` (public crate API) but validate `half_life_days > 0.0` only via `debug_assert!`, which is stripped in release builds. A zero value causes division-by-zero producing `NaN`/`Inf` that propagates silently. Since this is pure computation with no I/O, auth, or access-control implications, this is a reliability concern rather than a security vulnerability. If the function were ever exposed to untrusted input (e.g., user-configurable half-life via CLI or API), it would need a release-mode assertion or `Result` return. Current risk is low given the module's stated scope.

## Summary
| Category | CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW |
|----------|----------|------|--------|-----|
| Blocking | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| Should Fix | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| Pre-existing | - | - | 0 | 0 |

**Security Score**: 9/10
**Recommendation**: APPROVED
