Audit History
senior-prompt-engineer - 6 audits
Version comparison
Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.
| Version | Date | Result | Review items | Change vs previous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v6 Latest | Jul 6, 2026, 02:58 AM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v5 | Jul 6, 2026, 02:58 AM | No confirmed findings | 0 | Contains scripts |
| v4 | Jun 28, 2026, 08:47 AM | No confirmed findings | 1 | External commands |
| v3 | Jan 16, 2026, 05:02 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v2 | Jan 16, 2026, 05:02 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v1 | Jan 15, 2026, 11:36 AM | No confirmed findings | 0 | Baseline |
Jul 6, 2026, 02:58 AM
The static findings were reviewed in context and are false positives. The shell-related hits are Markdown code fences or inline documentation references, not executable backtick calls. The reconnaissance hits are prompt-engineering guidance and resource-awareness wording, not system or network enumeration.
Risk Factors
Jul 6, 2026, 02:58 AM
The static findings were reviewed in context and are false positives. The shell-related hits are Markdown code fences or inline documentation references, not executable backtick calls. The reconnaissance hits are prompt-engineering guidance and resource-awareness wording, not system or network enumeration.
Risk Factors
Jun 28, 2026, 08:47 AM
AI review dismissed the weak-cryptography and reconnaissance matches as false positives caused by documentation terms, argparse descriptions, and prior evaluation text. The skill includes Python CLI stubs and markdown command examples, but I found no automatic command execution, network access, credential access, cryptographic implementation, exfiltration, or prompt-injection language. Final risk is low because users should still review documented shell commands before manual use.
Capability review items (1)
These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.
Static false positives ignored (1)
These static matches were dismissed by semantic review or matched schema-only tokens, so they are shown for transparency but do not drive the quality score.
Risk Factors
⚡ Contains scripts (3)
⚙️ External commands (2)
Jan 16, 2026, 05:02 PM
All 108 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES caused by scanner misinterpretation. The scanner flagged the word 'algorithm' in documentation as cryptographic code (no crypto exists), markdown code blocks as shell execution (documentation only), and standard software terms as reconnaissance (legitimate engineering content). The skill contains benign documentation and Python CLI tools using standard libraries with no network operations, cryptographic functions, or dangerous patterns.
Risk Factors
⚡ Contains scripts (3)
Jan 16, 2026, 05:02 PM
All 108 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES caused by scanner misinterpretation. The scanner flagged the word 'algorithm' in documentation as cryptographic code (no crypto exists), markdown code blocks as shell execution (documentation only), and standard software terms as reconnaissance (legitimate engineering content). The skill contains benign documentation and Python CLI tools using standard libraries with no network operations, cryptographic functions, or dangerous patterns.
Risk Factors
⚡ Contains scripts (3)
Jan 15, 2026, 11:36 AM
All 43 static findings are FALSE POSITIVEs. The 'weak cryptographic algorithm' pattern detected the word 'algorithm' in documentation describing 'Efficient algorithms' for data processing. The 'external_commands' pattern detected markdown backticks for code formatting (```bash blocks). No actual cryptographic code, shell execution, or network reconnaissance exists in this skill. Scripts are simple CLI tools with argparse for argument parsing only.