Versioned security assessment

Report ID: SA-9F9517AC

6/30/2026, 6:21:37 AM

literature-review security assessment v5

Skill Security Certification Report

Audit History
Audit model: codex Historical report
Skill name
literature-review
Version
v5
Maintainer
K-Dense-AI
Source
github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills/tree/main/scientific-skills/literature-review
Coverage
7 Files scanned · 2,374 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.

Static analysis reported many high-risk patterns, but most markdown hits are false positives from fenced examples, DOI URLs, and academic syntax. Confirmed risks are legitimate but meaningful: Bash-enabled workflows, pandoc subprocess execution, DOI/Crossref network calls, and local file writes. No evidence found of credential theft, malicious obfuscation, destructive commands, or prompt injection attempts.

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

7 Files scanned · 2,374 Lines analyzed

4 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.

Observed in 3 evidence locations

Network access

May connect to external services.

Observed in 4 evidence locations

Filesystem access

May read or write local files.

Observed in 4 evidence locations

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 4 evidence locations

Capability review items (4)
Medium
scripts/generate_pdf.py:46scripts/generate_pdf.py:91scripts/generate_pdf.py:110
External Command Execution for PDF Generation
The PDF helper executes pandoc and dependency checks through subprocess.run. Arguments are passed as lists without shell=True, which reduces injection risk, but the workflow still runs local external tools on user-provided files.
The subprocess calls are direct and confirmed. Risk is moderate because the commands are fixed tool invocations and do not use a shell.
Medium
SKILL.md:4SKILL.md:136-142SKILL.md:603-616
Broad Bash Permission in Skill Metadata
The skill declares Bash as an allowed tool and instructs users to run helper scripts and package installers. This is expected for the workflow but increases execution risk compared with a documentation-only skill.
The Bash permission and command-oriented workflow are explicit. The commands appear legitimate, so this is an elevated operational risk, not confirmed abuse.
Low
scripts/verify_citations.py:16-18scripts/verify_citations.py:32-33scripts/verify_citations.py:47-48
Expected Network Calls to Citation Metadata Services
The citation verifier sends DOI values to doi.org and Crossref to validate references. These are documented academic endpoints, but citation lists may reveal research interests to third parties.
Network usage is clear and limited to citation validation. I found no evidence of credential collection or hidden exfiltration.
Low
scripts/search_databases.py:226-227scripts/search_databases.py:296-297scripts/verify_citations.py:215-217
Local File Reads and Writes for Review Outputs
The helper scripts read user-provided review or result files and write formatted output reports. A user-selected output path could overwrite local files if used carelessly.
The file operations are confirmed and match the documented output workflow. Risk is low because there is no hidden path construction beyond user input or a derived report filename.

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 (1)
Low
assets/review_template.md:57-61references/citation_styles.md:5-11scripts/search_databases.py:1
Static Markdown and Weak-Crypto Alerts Are False Positives
The flagged markdown backticks, hardcoded URLs, DOI examples, and bracket-heavy academic text are documentation patterns. I found no cryptographic algorithm implementation or obfuscated payload in the reviewed files.
Manual review showed citation examples, placeholders, and ordinary Python source. No suspicious encoding, crypto implementation, or executable markdown payload was present in the sampled static-hit context.

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