Audit History
parametric-scribe - 10 audits
Version comparison
Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.
| Version | Date | Result | Review items | Change vs previous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v10 Latest | Jul 9, 2026, 12:14 PM | 2 confirmed | 1 | No capability change |
| v9 | Jul 9, 2026, 12:14 PM | 2 confirmed | 1 | No capability change |
| v8 | Jul 5, 2026, 08:03 AM | No confirmed findings | 1 | No capability change |
| v7 | Jul 5, 2026, 08:03 AM | No confirmed findings | 1 | Filesystem access |
| v6 | Jun 29, 2026, 09:47 AM | No confirmed findings | 1 | Filesystem access |
| v5 | Jan 16, 2026, 11:56 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v4 | Jan 16, 2026, 11:56 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | External commands |
| v3 | Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v2 | Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | No capability change |
| v1 | Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM | No confirmed findings | 0 | Baseline |
Jul 9, 2026, 12:14 PM
Most static findings are Markdown backtick false positives, not Ruby or shell execution. One real external command risk remains because the replay workflow instructs git checkout, and two semantic risks involve prompt retention and replaying recipe-sourced prompts.
Confirmed security concerns (2)
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.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (9)
Jul 9, 2026, 12:14 PM
Most static findings are Markdown backtick false positives, not Ruby or shell execution. One real external command risk remains because the replay workflow instructs git checkout, and two semantic risks involve prompt retention and replaying recipe-sourced prompts.
Confirmed security concerns (2)
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.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (9)
Jul 5, 2026, 08:03 AM
Most static alerts are false positives caused by Markdown backticks around filenames and YAML examples. One medium-risk item remains: the replay protocol instructs the agent to run git checkout against a recipe SHA, which can change repository state. I found no prompt injection text or data exfiltration intent in the reviewed files.
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.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (9)
Jul 5, 2026, 08:03 AM
Most static alerts are false positives caused by Markdown backticks around filenames and YAML examples. One medium-risk item remains: the replay protocol instructs the agent to run git checkout against a recipe SHA, which can change repository state. I found no prompt injection text or data exfiltration intent in the reviewed files.
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.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (9)
Jun 29, 2026, 09:47 AM
Static analysis reported many command-execution and weak-cryptography matches, but most are false positives from Markdown backticks, YAML examples, and prose. One real concern remains: the replay workflow instructs the assistant to run a git checkout against a stored SHA, which can alter the working tree and should require user confirmation.
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 (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.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (1)
📁 Filesystem access (4)
Detected Patterns
Jan 16, 2026, 11:56 PM
This skill contains only documentation files with no executable code. All static findings are false positives: markdown code formatting (backticks) was misidentified as shell command execution, git SHA references were misidentified as weak cryptographic algorithms, and metadata fields were misidentified as C2 indicators and hardcoded URLs. The skill operates purely through documentation instructing AI assistants to maintain a YAML history file.
Risk Factors
Jan 16, 2026, 11:56 PM
This skill contains only documentation files with no executable code. All static findings are false positives: markdown code formatting (backticks) was misidentified as shell command execution, git SHA references were misidentified as weak cryptographic algorithms, and metadata fields were misidentified as C2 indicators and hardcoded URLs. The skill operates purely through documentation instructing AI assistants to maintain a YAML history file.
Risk Factors
Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM
This skill contains no executable code and poses no security risks. It operates purely through documentation that instructs AI assistants to maintain a YAML history file of coding tasks.
Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM
This skill contains no executable code and poses no security risks. It operates purely through documentation that instructs AI assistants to maintain a YAML history file of coding tasks.
Jan 10, 2026, 01:01 PM
This skill contains no executable code and poses no security risks. It operates purely through documentation that instructs AI assistants to maintain a YAML history file of coding tasks.