Add config parser by Satarupa22-SD · Pull Request #9 · gemaraproj/gemara-mcp

Satarupa22-SD · 2026-03-01T17:43:26Z

references #2

sonupreetam · 2026-03-03T17:14:20Z

+			"format": map[string]interface{}{
+				"type":        "string",
+				"description": "Format hint for the document. One of: markdown, yaml, json, kubernetes, dockerfile. If omitted, auto-detection is used.",
+				"enum":        []string{"markdown", "yaml", "json", "kubernetes", "dockerfile"},


@Satarupa22-SD "dockerfile" can be removed from the supported formats enum and dropped the test case, as it is not implemented and not relevant for governance documents. And the most common governance format (PDF) isn't handled, so is it something you would like to consider? WDYT?

@sonupreetam Thank you for reviewing. Actually, I had implemented pdf parser initially, but it was running into some errors and I had to remove it ultimately. I am still working on the pdf parser, it will be updated by tomorrow

I have removed dockerfile from the supported formats, thank you for pointing it out

sonupreetam · 2026-03-03T17:22:59Z

+			if strings.Contains(lower, kw) {
+
+				mappingConfidence := 0.75
+				combined := mappingConfidence * chunk.Confidence


High-confidence (≥0.7) are suitable for automated artifact generation, but no parser can produce it with the math (eg: 0.90 × 0.75 = 0.675). Either threshold should be lowered or the confidence values should be tuned.

sonupreetam · 2026-03-03T17:31:24Z

+
+// schemaFieldRules defines the keyword-to-field mapping table used by the SchemaMapper.
+// Rules are evaluated in order; the first match wins.
+var schemaFieldRules = []fieldRule{


@Satarupa22-SD For real governance documents like PCI DSS, many sections contain language spanning multiple schema fields. Do you think returning multiple candidates per chunk could be good, or at least document this as a known limitation?

To be honest, we are still brainstorming all the possible ways we can get around this particular limitation.

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:25:41Z

@Satarupa22-SD Looks like the DCO check is failed. Might just need a quick rebase on the existing commits to add the sign off. Solution is here - https://github.com/gemaraproj/gemara-mcp/pull/9/checks?check_run_id=65604954779

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:36:21Z

+	// Plain YAML: key: value at the start
+	if len(content) > 0 && strings.Contains(strings.SplitN(content, "\n", 2)[0], ":") {
+		// Avoid stealing from Dockerfile or Markdown parsers
+		if !strings.HasPrefix(content, "#") && !strings.HasPrefix(content, "FROM") {


Do we still need this if the Dockerfile parser is gone?

Suggested change

if !strings.HasPrefix(content, "#") && !strings.HasPrefix(content, "FROM") {

if !strings.HasPrefix(content, "#") {

jpower432

Just leaving an initial review, but I plan to testing this locally.

I like the code structure and the way this is laid out, but it may be good to take a second look at the SchemaMapper.

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:39:28Z

+
+// schemaFieldRules defines the keyword-to-field mapping table used by the SchemaMapper.
+// Rules are evaluated in order; the first match wins.
+var schemaFieldRules = []fieldRule{


Some of these target fields don't exist in the ControlCatalog schema. Is that what we are always targeting in this initial implementation?

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:39:41Z

+	{keywords: []string{"control statement", "requirement", "must ", "shall ", "required to"}, targetField: "controls[].statement"},
+	{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment"},
+	{keywords: []string{"implementation", "procedure", "how to", "steps to"}, targetField: "controls[].implementation"},
+	{keywords: []string{"parameter", "setting", "configuration", "config value"}, targetField: "controls[].parameters[]"},


Suggested change

{keywords: []string{"parameter", "setting", "configuration", "config value"}, targetField: "controls[].parameters[]"},

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:40:23Z

+	{keywords: []string{"version:", "revision:"}, targetField: "metadata.version"},
+	{keywords: []string{"objective", "goal", "purpose", "intent"}, targetField: "controls[].objective"},
+	{keywords: []string{"control statement", "requirement", "must ", "shall ", "required to"}, targetField: "controls[].statement"},
+	{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment"},


Suggested change

{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment"},

{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment-requirements"},

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:40:33Z

+	{keywords: []string{"title:", "name:", "policy name", "control name"}, targetField: "metadata.title"},
+	{keywords: []string{"version:", "revision:"}, targetField: "metadata.version"},
+	{keywords: []string{"objective", "goal", "purpose", "intent"}, targetField: "controls[].objective"},
+	{keywords: []string{"control statement", "requirement", "must ", "shall ", "required to"}, targetField: "controls[].statement"},


Suggested change

{keywords: []string{"control statement", "requirement", "must ", "shall ", "required to"}, targetField: "controls[].statement"},

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:40:55Z

+	{keywords: []string{"implementation", "procedure", "how to", "steps to"}, targetField: "controls[].implementation"},
+	{keywords: []string{"parameter", "setting", "configuration", "config value"}, targetField: "controls[].parameters[]"},
+	{keywords: []string{"reference", "see also", "related", "maps to"}, targetField: "metadata.references[]"},
+	{keywords: []string{"scope", "applies to", "applicability"}, targetField: "metadata.scope"},


This only applies to the Policy Schema

jpower432 · 2026-03-03T23:43:18Z

 	mcp.AddTool(server, MetadataGetSchemaDocs, a.getSchemaDocs)
+
+	// Evidence pipeline tool - parses governance and config documents into schema candidates
+	mcp.AddTool(server, MetadataParseGovernanceDocument, ParseGovernanceDocument)


Doesn't need to be addressed in this initial implementation, but we should add this to Artifact Mode I think because it is geared toward Gemara artifact creation and not Gemara artifact parsing, but that new mode was merged into main after this PR was submitted.

jpower432 · 2026-03-05T11:48:39Z

+	Format  string
+	ID      string
+}
+type EvidenceParser interface {


@Satarupa22-SD What do you think of advertising here what schemas are supported by which type or maybe this PR can just stick to populating Capabilities?

Satarupa22-SD added 2 commits March 1, 2026 23:06

add evidence parser to gemara-mcp

4ffd14e

update parse.go

adfed65

jpower432 linked an issue Mar 2, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Add a config parser to assist with the evidence pipeline #2

Open

jpower432 self-requested a review March 2, 2026 22:39

sonupreetam reviewed Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

sonupreetam suggested changes Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Satarupa22-SD added 2 commits March 3, 2026 23:48

Update supported formats

78fbba5

Update tests

b68ca25

jpower432 reviewed Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

jpower432 reviewed Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

jpower432 mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2026

Create an Audit Log wizard gemaraproj/gemara-ai#9

Open

	if !strings.HasPrefix(content, "#") && !strings.HasPrefix(content, "FROM") {
	if !strings.HasPrefix(content, "#") {

	{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment"},
	{keywords: []string{"assessment", "verify", "verification", "audit", "check"}, targetField: "controls[].assessment-requirements"},

Uh oh!

Conversation

Satarupa22-SD commented Mar 1, 2026

Uh oh!

sonupreetam Mar 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Satarupa22-SD Mar 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jpower432 commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jpower432 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

sonupreetam Mar 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Satarupa22-SD Mar 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading