Versioned security assessment

Report ID: SA-337393DD

5/21/2026, 8:25:38 AM

browser-act-skill-forge security assessment v1

Skill Security Certification Report

Audit History

Audit model: claude Historical report

Skill name: browser-act-skill-forge
Version: v1
Maintainer: browser-act
Source: github.com/browser-act/skills/tree/main/browser-act-skill-forge
Coverage: 4 Files scanned · 1,219 Lines analyzed
Policy version: Unavailable

Confirmed finding summary

No confirmed security findings

The completed audit recorded no confirmed security findings. This is not proof that the Skill has no side effects.

Installation context

Historical evidence

This report may not describe the currently installable artifact. Open the current Skill page for install guidance.

Open current Skill page

This report does not block or authorize the manifest or ZIP.

After evaluating 407 static analysis findings across 4 files (1219 lines), ALL findings are determined to be FALSE POSITIVES. The scanner flagged Ruby shell backtick execution (309), weak cryptographic algorithms (88), and network calls (10) — all of which appear exclusively in markdown code blocks and documentation templates as example commands and placeholder content, not as executable code. This skill is a legitimate browser automation toolkit that explores websites and packages discoveries into reusable Skill packages. It transparently documents its purpose and operational boundaries. The verified risk factors (external_commands and network) are expected for a browser automation tool and are not indicative of malicious intent.

Report position

Historical report

Open audit history before using this report to install.

Audit attestation

Not attestable

The required immutable binding is incomplete.

Human verification

Not verified

No human verification is recorded for this report.

Coverage

4 Files scanned · 1,219 Lines analyzed

0 items shown for review

Limitations

This report does not claim runtime or sandbox execution and does not prove the absence of side effects.

Evidence chain

Follow the evidence from source binding to the install contract. Available evidence supports verification; it is not a safety guarantee.

Source

Binding unavailable
Artifact

Identity incomplete
Audit

Complete
Install contract

Open manifest to verify
Open manifest

Capabilities observed

Observed means this report recorded supporting evidence. Not recorded does not prove that a capability is absent.

Contains scripts

May execute code included with the Skill.

Not recorded by this audit

Network access

May connect to external services.

Observed in 9 evidence locations

Filesystem access

May read or write local files.

Not recorded by this audit

Env variables

May read values from the process environment.

Not recorded by this audit

External commands

May invoke commands or programs outside the Skill.

Observed in 254 evidence locations

Risk findings

Confirmed security concerns are separated from items that still need review.

No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.

Expert evidence

Immutable subject identity, scanner metadata, dismissed matches, and source-level evidence.

Artifact subject

Marketplace commit: Unavailable
Content hash: Unavailable
Tree hash: Unavailable
Skill path: Unavailable
Audit payload hash: Unavailable

Analysis metadata

Audit model: claude

Analysis state: Complete

Scope is limited to the recorded files, lines, methods, and evidence. No runtime or sandbox execution is claimed.

Static false positives ignored (4)

Medium

External Command Execution in Documentation - FALSE POSITIVE (Dismissed)

Static scanner flagged 309 instances of Ruby shell backtick execution, shell command substitution, and template literal command substitution across all 4 files. All instances are in markdown code blocks showing example CLI commands (e.g., `network requests --type xhr,fetch --filter {domain keyword}`) and template Python invocation patterns (e.g., `eval "$(python scripts/xxx.py {params})"`). These are documentation examples and template code, not actively executed commands. No user input is injected into shell commands at runtime through these patterns. Confidence: 0.98. Confidence reasoning: All occurrences are inside markdown code fences or inline code formatting — the scanner pattern-matched backtick characters without context.

Medium

Weak Cryptographic Algorithm References in Templates - FALSE POSITIVE (Dismissed)

Static scanner flagged 88 instances of weak cryptographic algorithm patterns. All instances are template placeholder values inside markdown code blocks showing example JSON output structures (e.g., `{"field-name": "example-value"}`) and example JavaScript snippets with placeholder variables like `b.opts`, `el.val`. These are not actual cryptographic implementations. The scanner likely matched variable names and placeholder content that happen to resemble cryptographic patterns. No actual weak crypto algorithms are used. Confidence: 0.99. Confidence reasoning: All 88 flagged instances are template mock data in code examples — no `MD5`, `SHA1`, `DES`, `RC4`, or similar actual weak crypto implementations exist in any file.

Low

references/exploration_extraction.md:8 references/exploration_extraction.md:125 references/exploration_extraction.md:130 references/exploration_extraction.md:139 references/exploration_extraction.md:264-265 references/output_template.md:118 SKILL.md:7 SKILL.md:254

Network Calls in Documentation Examples - FALSE POSITIVE (Dismissed)

Static scanner flagged 10 network-related patterns (Fetch API calls and hardcoded URLs). All instances are in markdown code blocks showing example API exploration commands (e.g., `fetch('https://example.com/api/v1/items')`) and template navigation steps. The `https://www.browseract.com` URL in SKILL.md:7 is the legitimate project homepage. No actual network exfiltration or unauthorized data transmission is present. Confidence: 0.97. Confidence reasoning: All network patterns use placeholder URLs like `example.com` or reference the skill's own project homepage — there is no evidence of data being sent to unexpected destinations.

Low

references/exploration_extraction.md:68 references/exploration_extraction.md:321 references/exploration_operation.md:155 references/exploration_operation.md:196 references/output_template.md:294 references/output_template.md:354 SKILL.md:155 SKILL.md:261 SKILL.md:269 SKILL.md:285 SKILL.md:297 SKILL.md:300

System and Network Reconnaissance Patterns - FALSE POSITIVE (Dismissed)

Static scanner flagged DOM element access patterns (e.g., `element.shadowRoot.querySelector`, `state` element index access) as system/network reconnaissance. These are legitimate browser automation techniques for finding elements in Shadow DOM and referencing page elements by state index. The skill is designed to interact with web pages through the user's browser — DOM exploration is its core function, not reconnaissance. Confidence: 0.96. Confidence reasoning: All flagged patterns are standard web automation/DOM manipulation techniques used by browser automation tools — they operate on the user's own browser session, not remote systems.

Verify and export

JSON report CITATION.cff SARIF 2.1.0 Signed installation manifest

The manifest and lockfile bind install artifacts to cryptographic hashes. This integrity claim is separate from the security assessment.

Audit attestation: not_attestable