Audit History

executor-architecture - 1 audit

Oct 5, 2026, 04:54 PM

Most alerts are Markdown formatting, fixed sibling paths, or document identifiers rather than executable backticks, path traversal exploits, or reconnaissance. Required helper executions remain confirmed with low confidence because their implementations are outside the five reviewed files. Verification can record a passed phase before human approval; no evidence found of exfiltration, credential theft, or audit-directed prompt injection.

Files scanned

1,191

Lines analyzed

Review items

False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Medium

SKILL.md:156-175 SKILL.md:409-423

Verification Can Record Approval Before Human Review

Verification says "Run these in this session and cite their output at the gate" and includes a command recording architecture as passed. This conflicts with "On approval" and the instruction to stop at the gate. An agent could record unapproved architecture as accepted, weakening downstream approval controls.

The pre-gate verification list explicitly includes a passed-state mutation, while the procedure requires prior human approval. Actual enforcement cannot be checked without the helper implementation.

Capability review items (14)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

Medium

SKILL.md:49-52 SKILL.md:78-80 SKILL.md:100-102 SKILL.md:119-121 SKILL.md:168-170 SKILL.md:179-182 SKILL.md:189-191 SKILL.md:195-197

Ruby/shell backtick execution · 8 occurrences

```bash

The fenced block instructs executing a sibling helper to resolve an initiative and mutate its phase log. Its implementation is unavailable, so execution safety remains uncertain.

Medium

SKILL.md:288

Ruby/shell backtick execution

| `frozen` | A plan is executing against it | Do **not** edit. Write a new IFCE that supersedes it,

The frozen-interface rule instructs executing a sibling ruling helper with plan and decision arguments. Its implementation and argument handling are unavailable, so execution safety remains uncertain.

Medium

SKILL.md:343-347

Ruby/shell backtick execution

`../executor/scripts/exec-initiative phase INIT-0004 design skipped "<reason>"`

This instruction invokes a sibling phase-log helper with a supplied reason. The implementation and argument handling are unavailable, leaving execution safety uncertain.

Medium

SKILL.md:357-358

Ruby/shell backtick execution

1. Allocate a new ID: `../executor/scripts/exec-id INIT-0004 ADR`.

The supersession procedure requires executing the sibling ADR allocator. Its implementation is outside the reviewed package, so execution safety cannot be verified.

Medium

SKILL.md:413-414

Ruby/shell backtick execution

1. `../executor/scripts/exec-store-check` — no finding for this

Verification requires executing the sibling store-check helper. Its source is unavailable, so claimed validation behavior and execution safety cannot be verified.

Medium

SKILL.md:420-422

Ruby/shell backtick execution

4. `../executor/scripts/exec-scan-secrets docs/executor/<INIT>-<slug>/architecture`

Verification requires running a sibling helper over architecture documents to scan secrets. Its unavailable implementation could access document contents, so safety cannot be established.

Medium

SKILL.md:422-427

Ruby/shell backtick execution

5. `../executor/scripts/exec-initiative phase <INIT> architecture passed "..."`

Verification invokes a sibling helper that records a passed architecture phase. Its implementation is unavailable; the separate semantic finding addresses premature approval recording.

Risk Factors

📁 Filesystem access (24)

⚙️ External commands (50)

Audited by: codex

← Back to Skill