Versioned security assessment

Report ID: SA-BDCF798E

6/28/2026, 11:09:15 PM

analyzing-projects security assessment v6

Skill Security Certification Report

Audit History
Audit model: codex Historical report
Skill name
analyzing-projects
Version
v6
Maintainer
CloudAI-X
Source
github.com/CloudAI-X/claude-workflow/tree/main/skills/analyzing-projects
Coverage
1 Files scanned · 143 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.

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.

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

1 Files scanned · 143 Lines analyzed

3 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.

  1. Source

    Binding unavailable

  2. Artifact

    Identity incomplete

  3. Audit

    Complete

  4. 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.

Not recorded by this audit

Filesystem access

May read or write local files.

Observed in 1 evidence location

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 3 evidence locations

Capability review items (3)
Medium
SKILL.md:120-127SKILL.md:138
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
SKILL.md:24-28
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
SKILL.md:27
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.

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: codex

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 (2)
Low
SKILL.md:12-20SKILL.md:32-50SKILL.md:89-127
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
SKILL.md:3SKILL.md:93-104
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.

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