Audit History
azure-prepare - 5 audits
Version comparison
Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.
| Version | Date | Result | Review items | Change vs previous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v5 Latest | Jul 23, 2026, 06:56 PM | 16 confirmed | 8 | No capability change |
| v4 | Jul 8, 2026, 09:23 AM | 14 confirmed | 2 | No capability change |
| v3 | Jul 6, 2026, 05:56 PM | 6 confirmed | 6 | No capability change |
| v2 | Jun 30, 2026, 07:32 AM | 2 confirmed | 3 | No capability change |
| v1 | Feb 21, 2026, 08:39 AM | No confirmed findings | 0 | Baseline |
Jul 23, 2026, 06:56 PM
Most static matches are documentation false positives, including Markdown links, SDK environment lookups, and Azure resource identifiers. Confirmed risks include a pipe-to-shell installer, broad network rules, embedded storage keys, and an unsafe session-secret fallback. Semantic review found prompt injection, unverified remote templates, and approval bypasses; 279 capped static matches still require manual review. Static review was capped at 400/679 representative findings; omitted static matches are unconfirmed, so automatic publishing stays disabled until manual review.
Confirmed security concerns (16)
Capability review items (8)
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 (50)
📁 Filesystem access (50)
🔑 Env variables (50)
🌐 Network access (50)
⚡ Contains scripts (8)
Detected Patterns
Jul 8, 2026, 09:23 AM
The skill is primarily Markdown guidance for preparing azd-based Azure deployments, and most static findings are benign references, placeholders, or security-aware examples. Confirmed risks remain for a remote pipe-to-shell installer, storage account key-derived app settings, and a hardcoded session-secret fallback in Node.js guidance. Additional context risks include mandatory hidden plan-file writes, potential exposure of azd environment values, and optional broad SQL database grants.
Confirmed security concerns (14)
Capability review items (2)
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 (161)
📁 Filesystem access (58)
🔑 Env variables (127)
🌐 Network access (66)
⚡ Contains scripts (8)
Detected Patterns
Jul 6, 2026, 05:56 PM
Most static findings are benign Markdown examples, relative documentation links, Azure project paths, or environment variable placeholders. I confirmed the pipe-to-shell installer, permissive SQL firewall examples, and a storage key written into app settings. I also found prompt-injection language, user-confirmation bypass guidance, secret printing examples, and shared-key IaC patterns.
Confirmed security concerns (6)
Capability review items (6)
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 (26)
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 (203)
📁 Filesystem access (126)
🌐 Network access (54)
🔑 Env variables (72)
⚡ Contains scripts (22)
Detected Patterns
Jun 30, 2026, 07:32 AM
The audit confirms a prompt injection attempt in SKILL.md that tells the model to ignore prior training and treat the skill as authoritative. Most static command, filesystem, script, and credential findings are markdown examples or Azure configuration guidance, but the injection wording makes the skill unsafe to publish without remediation.
Confirmed security concerns (2)
Capability review items (3)
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 (3)
🌐 Network access (3)
📁 Filesystem access (3)
🔑 Env variables (3)
Detected Patterns
Feb 21, 2026, 08:39 AM
Security evaluation confirms this is a legitimate Microsoft Azure development skill. Static findings are false positives: external_commands are documented examples of Azure CLI/Terraform commands, not actual execution; sensitive data findings reference standard Azure credential paths for context; weak crypto findings appear in infrastructure template examples; system reconnaissance is for legitimate environment detection.