amal66 tries to make security checks worth listening to

amal66's idea was to add a separate security check to the project's review process, with a deliberately two-speed design.

Clearly dangerous practices would stop a change from passing review, while more ambiguous signals would be shown as warnings for a human to assess. That matters because security tooling that flags everything soon becomes background noise. The proposal targeted preventable mistakes around unsafe code execution, weak token generation and risky memory handling, without changing how the product runs for users.

The pull request was closed without being merged, so this remains a useful security-process proposal rather than a capability in the fork.