📦

Audit History

using-superpowers - 9 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v9 LatestJul 23, 2026, 03:51 PM 1 confirmed0No capability change
v8 Jul 10, 2026, 02:30 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v7 Jul 6, 2026, 09:53 AM 1 confirmed0External commands
v6 Jun 29, 2026, 04:03 PM 1 confirmed0 External commands
v5 Jan 17, 2026, 03:25 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v4 Jan 17, 2026, 03:25 AM No confirmed findings0External commands
v3 Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v2 Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v1 Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Jul 23, 2026, 03:51 PM

The static command-execution finding is a false positive because SKILL.md lines 20-40 contain Graphviz DOT inside a fenced documentation block. However, coercive instructions attempt to control response ordering and skill invocation regardless of higher-priority context, creating a critical prompt-injection risk.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Critical
Prompt Injection Attempt Detected
The text states, "IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT." It imposes mandatory behavior regardless of higher-priority context.
The imperative language and universal scope are explicit at lines 6-12. The before-any-response rule reinforces the attempted behavioral override at lines 16-18.

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
Audited by: codex

Jul 10, 2026, 02:30 PM

The only static finding is a false positive. Lines 20 through 40 contain a Graphviz DOT diagram in documentation, not executable Ruby or shell commands. No semantic security issue was found.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
1
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
Audited by: codex

Jul 6, 2026, 09:53 AM

The static external-command finding is a false positive caused by a Markdown DOT diagram fence, not executable code. Semantic review found prompt-injection-style control language that tries to make the assistant treat the skill as mandatory before any response.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Prompt Injection Attempt Detected
The skill uses pseudo-system framing and absolute commands such as "ABSOLUTELY MUST read the skill" and "YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE." This can pressure an assistant to prioritize the skill over normal instruction hierarchy.
The text does not explicitly say to ignore system instructions, but it uses high-priority framing and mandatory commands to control model behavior. That is a strong prompt-injection indicator in marketplace skill content.

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
Audited by: codex

Jun 29, 2026, 04:03 PM

Static findings for command execution and weak cryptography were reviewed and dismissed as false positives: the cited locations are prose or a Graphviz diagram. However, the skill contains prompt-injection style instructions that require mandatory behavior before any response, creating a critical marketplace safety risk.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
1
Review items
4
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Critical
Prompt Injection Attempt Detected
The skill uses pseudo-authoritative language such as "ABSOLUTELY MUST", "YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE", and "This is not negotiable" to force behavior before any response. This can override normal assistant decision-making and conflict with higher-priority instructions.
The cited text explicitly attempts to impose mandatory global behavior before any response. The wording is directly aligned with prompt-injection control patterns, although it does not include data exfiltration or code execution.
Static false positives ignored (4)

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
False Positive: Fenced Diagram Is Not Command Execution
The static analyzer reported Ruby or shell backtick execution at the fenced block starting on line 20. The block is tagged as dot and contains a Graphviz workflow diagram, not executable shell or Ruby code.
The full block is a Graphviz digraph with node and edge declarations. No backticks, shell commands, Ruby interpolation, or execution path are present.
Low
False Positive: Description Contains No Weak Cryptography
The static analyzer flagged weak cryptography at line 3. That line is front matter prose describing when to use the skill, with no cryptographic algorithm or code API present.
Line 3 contains only a natural-language description of the skill behavior. There is no hash function, cipher, library call, or security-sensitive computation.
Low
False Positive: Rule Text Contains No Weak Cryptography
The static analyzer flagged weak cryptography at line 18. That line is natural-language workflow guidance about checking for skills before a response, not cryptographic logic.
Line 18 contains only prose about assistant workflow. No weak algorithm, key handling, hashing, or encryption behavior appears there.
Low
False Positive: Priority List Contains No Weak Cryptography
The static analyzer flagged weak cryptography at line 65. That line lists examples of implementation skills and contains no cryptographic algorithm or code path.
Line 65 is a Markdown list item naming implementation skill examples. There is no evidence of cryptographic use or weak security primitives.

Detected Patterns

Prompt Injection Attempt Detected
Audited by: codex

Jan 17, 2026, 03:25 AM

This is a pure prompt-based skill containing only workflow guidelines. No executable code, no file system access, no network calls, no environment variable access. The skill provides instructions for skill invocation and is safe for publication. All 12 static findings are false positives: cryptographic hashes were misidentified as weak algorithms, Graphviz DOT syntax was misidentified as shell execution, and repository URLs were misidentified as network vulnerabilities.

2
Files scanned
253
Lines analyzed
1
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 17, 2026, 03:25 AM

This is a pure prompt-based skill containing only workflow guidelines. No executable code, no file system access, no network calls, no environment variable access. The skill provides instructions for skill invocation and is safe for publication. All 12 static findings are false positives: cryptographic hashes were misidentified as weak algorithms, Graphviz DOT syntax was misidentified as shell execution, and repository URLs were misidentified as network vulnerabilities.

2
Files scanned
253
Lines analyzed
1
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM

This is a pure prompt-based skill containing only workflow guidelines. No executable code, no file system access, no network calls, no environment variable access. The skill provides instructions for skill invocation and is safe for publication.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude

Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM

This is a pure prompt-based skill containing only workflow guidelines. No executable code, no file system access, no network calls, no environment variable access. The skill provides instructions for skill invocation and is safe for publication.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude

Jan 7, 2026, 01:37 AM

This is a pure prompt-based skill containing only workflow guidelines. No executable code, no file system access, no network calls, no environment variable access. The skill provides instructions for skill invocation and is safe for publication.

1
Files scanned
81
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude