Hey @Chennamma-Hotkar ,

After going through the changes carefully, I have to be honest: this PR has some fundamental issues that prevent us from merging it, and they follow a pattern we've seen in your previous PRs. It looks like a lot of this was generated or assembled without a thorough understanding of how the detection engine actually works. I'd like to explain why, concretely, so you can fix it properly if you want to take another shot at this.

The detection rules don't actually distinguish templates and every rule across all four primitives is functionally identical:

.forObjectTypes("com.google.crypto.tink.KeysetHandle")
.forMethods("generateNew")
.withAnyParameters()

shouldBeDetectedAs(new ValueActionFactory<>("AES128_GCM")) is a label, not a filter condition. The engine never inspects the actual argument passed to generateNew(). This means a single call like KeysetHandle.generateNew(AeadKeyTemplates.AES128_GCM) fires multiple rules simultaneously and produces separate findings -> one labeled AES128_GCM, one labeled AES256_GCM, one labeled ECDSA_P256, and so on. That's not detection, that's noise.

The tests actually confirm this unintentionally // Noncompliant 4 on every generateNew() line means the author accepted 4 findings per call as correct behavior. It isn't.

The test assertions don't test anything meaningful

All four test classes share essentially the same asserts() body, and every one accepts any of all 16 possible values:

assertThat(value.asString()).isIn("AES128_GCM", "AES256_GCM", ..., "ECDSA_P256", ...);
TinkAeadTest testing AEAD detection considers "ECDSA_P256" a valid result. That alone shows the assertions aren't verifying correctness -> they're just checking that the engine ran. Compare this to how existing JCA/BC tests work: each findingId has specific assertions for the exact algorithm, key size, and mode detected. That's what proper detection testing looks like.

We'd genuinely welcome proper Tink support, but if you want to take this on, please do it comprehensively:

• Figure out how the engine can discriminate between template constants (field references, not string literals) or discuss with us first if you're unsure
• Write assertions per finding that verify the specific algorithm, key size, and mode -> not a catch-all isIn() list
• Implement the translation for all four primitives, including extracting key sizes and modes from the template names

Happy to discuss the right approach here before you invest more time, just drop a comment.