📦

Audit History

analyzing-projects - 9 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v9 LatestJul 18, 2026, 10:50 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v8 Jul 5, 2026, 06:51 AM 1 confirmed0No capability change
v7 Jul 5, 2026, 06:51 AM 1 confirmed0No capability change
v6 Jun 28, 2026, 11:09 PM No confirmed findings3No capability change
v5 Jan 16, 2026, 09:38 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v4 Jan 16, 2026, 09:38 PM No confirmed findings0External commandsFilesystem access
v3 Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v2 Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v1 Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Jul 18, 2026, 10:50 AM

This skill is a purely instructional Markdown workflow that guides an agent through analyzing a codebase (README review, tech stack detection, structure mapping, workflow discovery). All 34 static findings are false positives: 33 'Ruby/shell backtick execution' hits matched Markdown code fences and inline code spans in documentation, not executable code, and the single filesystem finding is a harmless read-only 'cat README.md | head -50' overview command. No network access, no credential handling, no data exfiltration, and no prompt-injection content were found.

1
Files scanned
161
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jul 5, 2026, 06:51 AM

Most static findings are Markdown code fences or inline code formatting, not executable Ruby backtick usage. However, the workflow asks for development commands to be verified, which can lead an assistant to run untrusted install, dev, test, or build scripts. The skill should require explicit approval and sandboxing before any project-defined command is executed.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Unscoped Project Command Verification
The validation checklist asks users to mark development commands as verified and the output template lists install, dev, test, and build commands. In an untrusted project, running those commands can execute repository scripts without a permission or sandbox warning.
The file directly references common project commands and asks that development commands be verified working. The risk depends on whether the assistant executes them, so confidence is high but not certain.
Audited by: codex

Jul 5, 2026, 06:51 AM

Most static findings are Markdown code fences or inline code formatting, not executable Ruby backtick usage. However, the workflow asks for development commands to be verified, which can lead an assistant to run untrusted install, dev, test, or build scripts. The skill should require explicit approval and sandboxing before any project-defined command is executed.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
3
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Unscoped Project Command Verification
The validation checklist asks users to mark development commands as verified and the output template lists install, dev, test, and build commands. In an untrusted project, running those commands can execute repository scripts without a permission or sandbox warning.
The file directly references common project commands and asks that development commands be verified working. The risk depends on whether the assistant executes them, so confidence is high but not certain.
Audited by: codex

Jun 28, 2026, 11:09 PM

The static command findings are mostly false positives caused by Markdown code fences and inline backticks, not Ruby backtick execution. The skill does instruct assistants to inspect files and may lead users to run package-manager commands in unfamiliar repositories, which creates a real but contextual execution risk. No evidence found of malicious intent, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, obfuscation, or prompt injection.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
2
False positives ignored
Capability review items (3)

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
Project-Provided Commands May Execute Untrusted Code
The output template lists package-manager commands such as install, development, test, and build commands. In an unfamiliar project, these commands can execute project-controlled scripts and should require user approval and sandboxing.
The referenced lines explicitly include npm commands and say development commands should be verified working. This is a legitimate analysis workflow, but it can execute untrusted repository code.
Medium
Shell-Based Repository Inspection
The workflow includes shell commands to list files and read README content. These commands are common and low impact, but they still require filesystem access to the target repository.
The commands are directly present and limited to local inspection. The risk is moderate only when used against untrusted workspaces or sensitive directories.
Low
README File Access Is Expected For Analysis
The filesystem finding points to reading README.md during project discovery. This is expected behavior for a codebase analysis skill, but users should avoid running it in directories with unrelated sensitive files.
The command only reads the local README file and truncates output. It is a real filesystem action, but it is not suspicious by itself.
Static false positives ignored (2)

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.

Low
Markdown Backticks Misidentified As Ruby Execution
The static analyzer reported many Ruby or shell backtick execution findings. Review shows these are Markdown code fences and inline code examples used to document project markers, not executable Ruby code.
The matched content is Markdown documentation, not a Ruby source file or executable script. The skill contains no evidence of Ruby backtick command execution.
Low
Weak Cryptography Matches Are Textual False Positives
The high-severity weak cryptography matches occur in ordinary prose or template placeholders about architecture and descriptions. No evidence found of cryptographic code, hashing, encryption, or weak algorithm usage.
The cited lines are descriptive Markdown text and an output template. They do not contain crypto APIs or algorithm selection.

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (3)
📁 Filesystem access (1)

Detected Patterns

Package Manager Command Execution
Audited by: codex

Jan 16, 2026, 09:38 PM

This is a documentation-only skill containing no executable code. All 54 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES caused by the scanner misinterpreting markdown syntax and template placeholders. The SKILL.md file contains only documentation, checklists, and example formatting - no actual shell commands, cryptographic algorithms, or network operations are present. The skill provides a structured workflow for codebase analysis.

2
Files scanned
331
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jan 16, 2026, 09:38 PM

This is a documentation-only skill containing no executable code. All 54 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES caused by the scanner misinterpreting markdown syntax and template placeholders. The SKILL.md file contains only documentation, checklists, and example formatting - no actual shell commands, cryptographic algorithms, or network operations are present. The skill provides a structured workflow for codebase analysis.

2
Files scanned
331
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM

This is a documentation-only skill with no executable code. It provides structured instructions for analyzing codebases using standard Unix commands. No security risks identified.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM

This is a documentation-only skill with no executable code. It provides structured instructions for analyzing codebases using standard Unix commands. No security risks identified.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 12:27 PM

This is a documentation-only skill with no executable code. It provides structured instructions for analyzing codebases using standard Unix commands. No security risks identified.

1
Files scanned
143
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude