exploreAIExplore
How to Use Corgea for Source verification checklists
Learn Corgea source verification checklists with step by step workflows, realistic examples, and verified plan notes.
Corgea works well for source verification checklists when you run it like production work: locked brief, SOURCE facts, then review before publish. Corgea is listed in the catalog with official site corgea.com. Confirm current product scope, packaging, and limits on the official site. Do not invent scanners, integrations, or pricing. Start at /explore/corgea.
This guide focuses on source verification checklists in detail. Related Corgea articles: /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-deployment-scoping-notes, /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-vendor-question-lists, /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-proof-of-concept-planning.
When this workflow is the right job
Use source verification checklists when the deliverable is specifically this Corgea job. Switch to official documentation review when that workflow already owns the asset.
Step by step workflow
1. Brief Source verification checklists
Write what must stay true for source verification checklists in Corgea before settings or spend.
Brief: Source verification checklists Keep: verified SOURCE facts only Avoid: invented pricing or features Success: one reviewable output
2. Open Corgea for Source verification checklists
Use the Corgea surface that owns source verification checklists. Do not mix a neighboring workflow in the same pass.
Surface: Source verification checklists Start: pilot with one representative input Plans: corgea.com
3. Pilot Source verification checklists
Run a single source verification checklists pilot. Score clarity, grounding, and whether the output is reviewable.
Pilot: Source verification checklists [ ] SOURCE facts match [ ] Output reviewable [ ] Settings logged
4. Refine Source verification checklists
Change one source verification checklists dimension only. Save a template from the best run.
Refine: Source verification checklists Change: one control only Keep: SOURCE and success criteria
Practical source verification checklists examples
Noise filter note
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Noise filter note". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Noise filter note with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Noise filter note - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Noise filter note: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
False positive mark
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "False positive mark". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for False positive mark with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for False positive mark - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for False positive mark: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Severity reorder
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Severity reorder". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Severity reorder with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Severity reorder - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Severity reorder: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Repo allowlist
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Repo allowlist". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Repo allowlist with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Repo allowlist - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Repo allowlist: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
IDE Autofix preview
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "IDE Autofix preview". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for IDE Autofix preview with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for IDE Autofix preview - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for IDE Autofix preview: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
IaC drift
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "IaC drift". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for IaC drift with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for IaC drift - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for IaC drift: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
VM reachability
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "VM reachability". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for VM reachability with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for VM reachability - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for VM reachability: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Bot protection alert
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Bot protection alert". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Bot protection alert with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Bot protection alert - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Bot protection alert: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Report export
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Report export". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Report export with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Report export - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Report export: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Owner assignment
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Owner assignment". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Owner assignment with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Owner assignment - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Owner assignment: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
SLA for critical
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "SLA for critical". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for SLA for critical with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for SLA for critical - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for SLA for critical: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Retest after fix
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Retest after fix". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Retest after fix with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Retest after fix - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Retest after fix: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
SAST SQL injection
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "SAST SQL injection". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for SAST SQL injection with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for SAST SQL injection - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for SAST SQL injection: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
SCA CVE triage
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "SCA CVE triage". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for SCA CVE triage with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for SCA CVE triage - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for SCA CVE triage: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Secret in CI log
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Secret in CI log". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Secret in CI log with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Secret in CI log - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Secret in CI log: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Autofix PR review
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Autofix PR review". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Autofix PR review with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Autofix PR review - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Autofix PR review: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Cloud attack path
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Cloud attack path". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Cloud attack path with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Cloud attack path - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Cloud attack path: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Container CVE
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Container CVE". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Container CVE with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Container CVE - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Container CVE: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
K8s misconfig
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "K8s misconfig". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for K8s misconfig with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for K8s misconfig - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for K8s misconfig: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Pentest finding
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Pentest finding". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Pentest finding with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Pentest finding - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Pentest finding: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
Runtime injection block
Scenario: A security or engineering owner triages Source verification checklists in Corgea for finding "Runtime injection block". Objective: Produce a remediation-ready write-up for Runtime injection block with severity, owner, and verify steps. Inputs: - Finding metadata for Runtime injection block - Repo/service scope - Environment (dev/stage/prod) - Acceptable fix patterns Workflow: Open finding → Validate true positive → Assign owner → Autofix or manual patch plan → Retest in Corgea → Close or accept risk with ticket Requirements: - Stay within verified Corgea capabilities; do not invent features. - Confirm live plan notes on corgea.com before promising volume. - Change one variable between iterations. - Human-review before external publish, send, billing, or clinical/legal use. - Do not mark fixed without retest evidence. Expected output: A ticket-ready Source verification checklists note for Runtime injection block: severity, fix plan, retest result, and residual risk.
How to improve source verification checklists
Cut noise from source verification checklists by removing extra adjectives while preserving SOURCE facts in Corgea.
Raise quality by insisting on a single success check before debating style.
Make review easier by labeling fields that must never change.
Speed iteration by cloning the last good run and altering only one control.
Stabilize outputs by pinning settings after the pilot is approved.
Reduce rework by rejecting drafts that invent claims.
Improve handoffs by recording which control produced the best result.
Harden the workflow by testing an incomplete input before trusting defaults.
Prompting and usage guidance
Name the source verification checklists job, audience, and success check before opening Corgea.
Paste only verified facts under SOURCE so Corgea cannot invent details.
Specify the deliverable shape up front.
Call out fixed details versus flexible style choices.
Ask Corgea to flag unsupported claims before you accept the draft.
Limitations to respect
Check Corgea plan gates for source verification checklists on corgea.com before you promise timelines.
Keep drafts unpublished until a human confirms SOURCE facts.
Corgea can be wrong. Treat source verification checklists as provisional until review.
If documentation is silent on a claim, leave it out rather than guessing.
Practical tips for this workflow
Pilot once before batching source verification checklists in Corgea.
Keep a reusable template with variables for source verification checklists.
Separate creative instructions from SOURCE facts.
Log settings from the best run.
Common mistakes
- Skipping the pilot run before scaling volume
- Inventing pricing, quotas, or features not on official pages
- Mixing unrelated workflows in one session
- Publishing without a human review gate
Treat source verification checklists in Corgea as a production workflow: brief, pilot, refine, then ship with review. Related reading: /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-deployment-scoping-notes, /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-vendor-question-lists, /blog/how-to-use-corgea-for-proof-of-concept-planning.