All eight static findings are false positives in documentation and illustrative code. No prompt injection, malicious intent, command execution, reconnaissance, or unsafe network destination was found.
All static findings are false positives in documentation or sample code context. No evidence found of prompt injection, malicious intent, command execution, data exfiltration, or unsafe network behavior in the reviewed files.
All static findings are false positives in documentation or sample code context. No evidence found of prompt injection, malicious intent, command execution, data exfiltration, or unsafe network behavior in the reviewed files.
The static external command and weak cryptography findings are false positives caused by Markdown code fences and billing terms such as amount, payment, and HTML table markup. Human review found no malicious intent or prompt injection, but the playbook includes payment processor calls and unescaped invoice HTML examples that require a marketplace warning.
The playbook demonstrates a Stripe charge call that would contact a payment processor and charge a saved customer if copied into a live environment. This matches the billing purpose and is not malicious, but it can cause financial harm without sandbox controls.
The sample directly calls a payment processor charge API, and the skill warns not to charge real customers in testing. The risk is contextual rather than malicious because billing automation legitimately needs payment integrations.
The invoice HTML example formats customer name, address, and line item content directly into an HTML template. If copied without escaping, customer-controlled billing fields could create HTML injection or stored cross-site scripting in rendered invoices.
The template inserts customer and line item values into HTML without showing escaping or sanitization. The example omits surrounding application context, so the exact exploitability depends on the implementation.
Needs review findings (1)
These findings came from uncertain legacy audit verdicts, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed security issues.
The playbook includes a hardcoded example.com billing URL inside a dunning email template. It is a documentation placeholder, but implementers should replace it with a configured application URL.
The URL is clearly an example domain and does not indicate exfiltration. It still represents a network-facing billing link that must be configured safely in real deployments.
Static false positives ignored (3)
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.
Markdown Code Fences Misclassified as Shell Execution
The reported Ruby or shell backtick execution locations are Markdown code fences or inline file references. They do not execute commands and no shell invocation syntax was found in the reviewed skill files.
The matched backticks delimit Markdown examples and filenames, not executable Ruby or shell expressions. The files are documentation and contain no runnable script entry point.
Weak Cryptography Findings Are Billing Text False Positives
The weak cryptography alerts occur on billing words and HTML table content, not on MD5, SHA1, DES, or other weak cryptographic algorithms. No evidence of cryptographic implementation was found in the reviewed files.
The cited lines contain invoice descriptions, amount fields, and HTML table markup. None of the cited lines implement or recommend a cryptographic algorithm.
System Reconnaissance Findings Are Identifier False Positives
The system reconnaissance alerts appear on generated billing identifiers such as subscription and invoice IDs. They are ordinary domain model fields and do not collect hostnames, usernames, environment details, or operating system data.
The cited identifiers are billing object IDs, not host or system discovery commands. No evidence of reconnaissance behavior appears near those lines.
All 35 static findings are false positives. The external_commands detections are markdown code block fences (backticks), not shell execution. The network detection is a placeholder URL in example email templates. The blocker detections for weak crypto and system reconnaissance are standard Python code patterns (string assignments, ID generation) used in legitimate billing logic. No prompt injection attempts detected.
2
Files scanned
590
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
4
False positives ignored
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.
Static scanner detected backticks in markdown as shell execution. These are actually markdown code fences (```python ... ```) containing Python code examples for billing automation.
The backtick characters are part of markdown syntax for code blocks, not Ruby/shell command execution. The file contains educational Python code samples for billing implementation.