Skills outreach-manager Audit History
πŸ“¦

Audit History

outreach-manager - 6 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v6 LatestJul 27, 2026, 11:33 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v5 Jul 13, 2026, 02:18 PM 2 confirmed0No capability change
v4 Jul 13, 2026, 02:18 PM 2 confirmed0No capability change
v3 Jul 12, 2026, 01:18 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v2 Jul 6, 2026, 06:14 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v1 Jul 4, 2026, 04:22 PM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Jul 27, 2026, 11:33 AM

All 39 static findings are false positives. The apparent command execution is Markdown formatting or connector placeholders, and the apparent traversal is documentation links or named memory locations. The skill contains no executable code, network requests, prompt-injection language, or enabled live integration.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jul 13, 2026, 02:18 PM

All 39 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown fences, inline code, relative documentation links, or GitHub metadata. Semantic review found risks from invented personalization details and potentially unsolicited multi-channel follow-ups. No prompt injection or executable command behavior was found.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (2)

Medium
Unverified Personalization in Worked Examples
Worked examples introduce an exact post, shopping behavior, and past brand partners that the example input did not provide. Reusing this pattern could produce deceptive outreach.
Direct comparison shows that the outputs add recipient-specific claims absent from their inputs, despite the separate rule against fabricated content references.
Medium
Unsolicited Multi-Channel Follow-Up Automation
The skill can schedule repeated messages and switch channels after no response. Without approval, consent, and rate controls, this could facilitate spam or unwanted contact.
The instructions explicitly identify a sending connector and direct a multi-touch cadence that changes channels after no reply.
Audited by: codex

Jul 13, 2026, 02:18 PM

All 39 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown fences, inline code, relative documentation links, or GitHub metadata. Semantic review found risks from invented personalization details and potentially unsolicited multi-channel follow-ups. No prompt injection or executable command behavior was found.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (2)

Medium
Unverified Personalization in Worked Examples
Worked examples introduce an exact post, shopping behavior, and past brand partners that the example input did not provide. Reusing this pattern could produce deceptive outreach.
Direct comparison shows that the outputs add recipient-specific claims absent from their inputs, despite the separate rule against fabricated content references.
Medium
Unsolicited Multi-Channel Follow-Up Automation
The skill can schedule repeated messages and switch channels after no response. Without approval, consent, and rate controls, this could facilitate spam or unwanted contact.
The instructions explicitly identify a sending connector and direct a multi-touch cadence that changes channels after no reply.
Audited by: codex

Jul 12, 2026, 01:18 PM

All 39 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown code fences, inline code, relative documentation links, and repository metadata URLs. No executable commands, automatic network requests, path traversal behavior, prompt injection, or malicious intent were found.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: codex

Jul 6, 2026, 06:14 PM

The static findings are false positives from Markdown fences, relative documentation links, homepage metadata, and outreach copy guidance. I found no prompt injection, executable command behavior, credential access, or unauthorized network activity in the reviewed files.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: codex

Jul 4, 2026, 04:22 PM

I found no confirmed security issues after reviewing the flagged files in context. The static alerts are Markdown code fences, relative documentation links, connector placeholders, and metadata URLs rather than executable behavior. No evidence of prompt injection, shell execution, unsafe network activity, or data exfiltration was found.

3
Files scanned
567
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: codex