Historial de auditorías

Legitimate academic citation management tool. Static analysis produced 1131 false positives by misinterpreting markdown code blocks as shell commands, list comprehensions as obfuscation, and documentation as network reconnaissance. Actual Python scripts make authorized API calls to public academic databases (CrossRef, PubMed, arXiv) for metadata retrieval.

Legitimate academic citation management tool. Static analysis produced 1131 false positives by misinterpreting markdown code blocks as shell commands, list comprehensions as obfuscation, and documentation as network reconnaissance. Actual Python scripts make authorized API calls to public academic databases (CrossRef, PubMed, arXiv) for metadata retrieval.

Legitimate academic citation management tool. Static scanner produced 1124 false positives by misinterpreting markdown code blocks as Ruby backticks, BibTeX citation keys as cryptographic keys, and documentation URLs as network endpoints. Actual Python scripts make legitimate API calls to public academic databases (CrossRef, PubMed, arXiv) and use standard environment variable patterns for optional API credentials.

The skill includes six Python scripts that access scholarly databases (CrossRef, PubMed, arXiv, Google Scholar) and read/write user-provided BibTeX files. All network calls target legitimate academic APIs documented in the code. The scripts' behavior matches the stated purpose of citation management. No obfuscation, hidden execution paths, or credential theft patterns were detected. Two minor concerns involve HTTP usage for arXiv API and optional proxy configuration for scholarly library rate limiting.