Historique des audits

All 173 static alerts are false positives involving escaped HTML rendering, documentation syntax, advertising terminology, or legitimate provider examples. No evidence found of credential exfiltration, covert screen capture, malicious shell execution, or instructions to override this audit. External services and optional installation commands still require separate authorization and dependency review.

All 123 static alerts are false positives caused by escaped HTML rendering, JavaScript template literals, Markdown, relative links, and documented provider API examples. One high-severity concern remains: voice-cloning guidance does not require consent or authorization, which can enable impersonation. No prompt injection or credential exfiltration evidence was found.

All 123 static alerts are false positives caused by escaped HTML rendering, JavaScript template literals, Markdown, relative links, and documented provider API examples. One high-severity concern remains: voice-cloning guidance does not require consent or authorization, which can enable impersonation. No prompt injection or credential exfiltration evidence was found.

Les 55 alertes statiques sont toutes des faux positifs causés par du Markdown, des liens de documentation, du texte marketing ordinaire ou des exemples d'API à portée limitée. L'examen sémantique a relevé l'exécution de code tiers non épinglé, l'absence de mesures de consentement pour le clonage vocal et des risques d'interfaces trompeuses malgré les directives de divulgation existantes.

Most static alerts are false positives caused by Markdown syntax, documentation links, URL text, and environment-variable placeholders. No prompt injection or credential exfiltration was found. However, the references recommend unpinned third-party execution and native-interface imitation, creating supply-chain and deception risks.

Most static findings are false positives caused by markdown examples, code fences, reference URLs, and fixed documentation links. One static network finding remains because the guide recommends cloning unpinned third-party source code, and semantic review found missing guardrails for voice cloning. No prompt injection attempt was found in the reviewed files.

No executable malware behavior, unauthorized network calls, or prompt injection attempts were found. The static findings are documentation examples, Markdown code fences, placeholder API variables, and relative documentation links. Optional external APIs and local CLIs are disclosed as user-run workflows rather than hidden skill actions.

Most static findings are false positives caused by markdown examples, code fences, reference URLs, and fixed documentation links. One static network finding remains because the guide recommends cloning unpinned third-party source code, and semantic review found missing guardrails for voice cloning. No prompt injection attempt was found in the reviewed files.

Static analysis reported many high-risk patterns, but most are false positives from marketing terms, platform acronyms, Markdown links, and documentation examples. The remaining concern is publishable medium risk: the skill includes command examples, API calls, local CLI workflows, and API key placeholders that should only run with explicit user approval.

All 158 static findings are false positives. The 'weak cryptographic algorithm' detections are misidentified terms: RSA means Responsive Search Ads (Google Ads format), not encryption. Other flags stem from markdown documentation containing API examples, reference URLs, and relative file paths. No executable code or malicious patterns exist in this instructional skill.