A secure coding report should explain the vulnerable flow before it recommends a fix. Identify the input, the trust boundary, the processing step and the output or storage location affected by the weakness. This helps the reader understand the root cause instead of seeing the issue as an isolated line of code.
Severity should be justified with context. A vulnerability is not high risk only because a scanner labels it that way. Explain the impact, the likelihood, the affected user role, the data exposed and the conditions required for exploitation. This creates a balanced academic judgement.
The remediation section should show a secure pattern, not only say to validate input or sanitize output. Give practical direction such as parameterised queries, server-side authorization checks, output encoding, secure file handling or safer cryptographic use. When possible, explain why the fix works.
Verification closes the report. State how the issue was retested, what result confirms the fix and what regression risk should still be monitored. A professional secure coding submission proves that the weakness was understood, corrected and checked again.