История аудитов

This is legitimate bioinformatics software. All 614 static findings are false positives: markdown code fences were misidentified as Ruby shell execution, hardcoded URLs are public genomic databases (Ensembl, UniProt, NCBI), cryptographic patterns are data integrity checksums, and the critical heuristic is standard bioinformatics behavior (network queries to public APIs + local file operations for results).

This is legitimate bioinformatics software. All 614 static findings are false positives: markdown code fences were misidentified as Ruby shell execution, hardcoded URLs are public genomic databases (Ensembl, UniProt, NCBI), cryptographic patterns are data integrity checksums, and the critical heuristic is standard bioinformatics behavior (network queries to public APIs + local file operations for results).

This is a legitimate bioinformatics tool. All 592 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES triggered by markdown documentation format. The analyzer misinterpreted markdown code block delimiters (backticks) as Ruby backtick execution, and flagged bioinformatics algorithm names as 'weak cryptographic algorithms'. No subprocess, os.system, or command injection patterns exist in the actual Python code.

The skill provides wrapper scripts for the gget bioinformatics library. No credential theft, data exfiltration, or malicious code execution patterns were found. All network calls go to legitimate genomic databases (Ensembl, UniProt, AlphaFold, etc.). Filesystem access is limited to reading user-provided gene lists and writing results to local directories.