Audit History

AI review found no evidence of malicious intent, prompt injection, credential access, or data exfiltration. Most static findings are false positives from academic prose, Markdown fences, LaTeX syntax, and documentation URLs. The confirmed residual risk is limited to helper scripts that write user-selected local output files.

AI review found no evidence of malicious intent, prompt injection, credential access, or data exfiltration. Most static findings are false positives from academic prose, Markdown fences, LaTeX syntax, and documentation URLs. The confirmed residual risk is limited to helper scripts that write user-selected local output files.

AI review found no evidence of malicious intent, prompt injection, credential access, or data exfiltration. Most static findings are false positives from academic prose, Markdown fences, LaTeX syntax, and documentation URLs. The confirmed residual risk is limited to helper scripts that write user-selected local output files.

AI review found no evidence of malicious intent, prompt injection, credential access, or data exfiltration. Most static findings are false positives from academic prose, Markdown fences, LaTeX syntax, and documentation URLs. The confirmed residual risk is limited to helper scripts that write user-selected local output files.

AI review found no evidence of malicious intent or prompt injection. Most static findings are false positives from Markdown, LaTeX, citation text, and documentation URLs; residual risk comes from local helper scripts that execute fixed PDF tools and write user-selected output files.

All 791 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES. The scanner incorrectly flagged: (1) Markdown backticks as shell commands across 400 locations in documentation files; (2) LaTeX formatting commands (\textbf, \section, \cite) as cryptographic algorithms across 300+ locations in template files; (3) Documentation URLs to journal websites as hardcoded URLs; (4) PDF validation utility calls (pdfinfo, pdffonts) as external commands; (5) Help text mentioning 'sudo apt-get' as privilege escalation. This is a legitimate academic template repository with no security risks.

All 791 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES. The scanner incorrectly flagged: (1) Markdown backticks as shell commands across 400 locations in documentation files; (2) LaTeX formatting commands (\textbf, \section, \cite) as cryptographic algorithms across 300+ locations in template files; (3) Documentation URLs to journal websites as hardcoded URLs; (4) PDF validation utility calls (pdfinfo, pdffonts) as external commands; (5) Help text mentioning 'sudo apt-get' as privilege escalation. This is a legitimate academic template repository with no security risks.