📦

Historique des audits

comprehensive-review-pr-enhance - 4 audits

Comparaison des versions

Évolution des capacités et des constats entre les versions auditées, les plus récentes en premier.

VersionDateRésultatÉléments à examinerChangement vs précédente
v4 Dernier2026년 7월 6일 오후 10:31 Aucun constat confirmé0Aucun changement de capacité
v3 2026년 7월 6일 오후 10:31 Aucun constat confirmé0Aucun changement de capacité
v2 2026년 6월 30일 오후 03:06 1 confirmé0Commandes externes
v1 2026년 2월 25일 오전 07:42 Aucun constat confirmé0Référence

2026년 7월 6일 오후 10:31

All eight static findings are false positives after context review. The subprocess snippets are illustrative local git examples, and the other detections are Markdown or Mermaid formatting. No evidence found of prompt injection, malicious intent, or data exfiltration.

2
Fichiers analysés
739
Lignes analysées
1
Éléments à examiner
0
Faux positifs ignorés
Audité par: codex

2026년 7월 6일 오후 10:31

All eight static findings are false positives after context review. The subprocess snippets are illustrative local git examples, and the other detections are Markdown or Mermaid formatting. No evidence found of prompt injection, malicious intent, or data exfiltration.

2
Fichiers analysés
739
Lignes analysées
1
Éléments à examiner
0
Faux positifs ignorés
Audité par: codex

2026년 6월 30일 오후 03:06

Static analysis found many high-risk patterns, but review shows most are false positives from Markdown fences, placeholders, and Mermaid labels. The only confirmed risk factor is documentation that demonstrates local git subprocess commands for PR analysis; no network access, credential access, exfiltration, or prompt injection was found.

2
Fichiers analysés
739
Lignes analysées
2
Éléments à examiner
1
Faux positifs ignorés

Préoccupations de sécurité confirmées (1)

Faible
Local Git Command Examples in Documentation
The playbook includes Python examples that run local git diff commands with subprocess.run and a Bash split workflow. This confirms the external command pattern, but the commands are documentation examples for local repository analysis and do not use shell=True, networking, secrets, or exfiltration.
The subprocess calls and Bash commands are directly visible. Context shows local git-only PR analysis examples, so the security impact is low.
Faux positifs statiques ignorés (1)

Ces correspondances statiques ont été écartées par l’examen sémantique ou correspondaient uniquement à des jetons de schéma ; elles sont donc affichées par souci de transparence, mais n’influencent pas le score de qualité.

Faible
Static Markdown and Placeholder False Positives
The Ruby backtick, weak crypto, C2 keyword, and system reconnaissance alerts are false positives. Inspected locations contain Markdown code fences, PR template placeholders, a Mermaid node label C2[Database], or normal skill role text rather than malicious behavior.
The cited lines were inspected and do not contain weak cryptography, reconnaissance, C2 behavior, or Ruby execution. They are Markdown content and PR templates.

Motifs détectés

Python subprocess.run for Local Git Inspection
Audité par: codex

2026년 2월 25일 오전 07:42

All static analysis findings evaluated as false positives. The skill contains Python code examples and templates within markdown documentation files, not executable code. The subprocess calls and shell commands exist only as illustrative examples in code blocks. No actual command execution, network access, or security risks present. Safe for publication.

2
Fichiers analysés
741
Lignes analysées
0
Éléments à examiner
0
Faux positifs ignorés
Aucun constat de sécurité confirmé n’a été enregistré pour cet audit terminé.
Audité par: claude