📦

Audit History

obsidian-clipper-template-creator - 5 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v5 LatestAug 4, 2026, 04:38 PM 2 confirmed0No capability change
v4 Jul 7, 2026, 12:31 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v3 Jul 7, 2026, 12:31 AM No confirmed findings0External commands Filesystem access
v2 Jun 30, 2026, 05:38 PM No confirmed findings2Network accessFilesystem access
v1 Feb 24, 2026, 05:32 PM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Aug 4, 2026, 04:38 PM

All 17 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown formatting, example data, template terminology, or official documentation links. The skill still exposes agents to unrestricted URL retrieval and indirect prompt injection from untrusted page content.

9
Files scanned
573
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (2)

Medium
Unrestricted User-Supplied URL Retrieval
The required workflow fetches a user-provided URL without restricting schemes, redirects, or private network destinations.
The files explicitly require WebFetch or a browser snapshot for a user-provided URL, and no destination validation or network boundary is stated.
Medium
Indirect Prompt Injection Exposure
The workflow analyzes untrusted webpage content without instructing the agent to ignore embedded commands and treat retrieved text only as data.
The agent must analyze fetched HTML, but the workflow provides no instruction boundary for potentially adversarial page content.
Audited by: codex

Jul 7, 2026, 12:31 AM

The static findings are false positives caused by markdown examples, documentation links, and inline code formatting. I found no prompt injection, credential access, command execution, or malicious data exfiltration intent in the reviewed files.

8
Files scanned
475
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: codex

Jul 7, 2026, 12:31 AM

The static findings are false positives caused by markdown examples, documentation links, and inline code formatting. I found no prompt injection, credential access, command execution, or malicious data exfiltration intent in the reviewed files.

8
Files scanned
475
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: codex

Jun 30, 2026, 05:38 PM

Static analysis reported many high and medium issues, but review found they are false positives from Markdown examples and Obsidian template syntax. No executable code, shell command invocation, credential access, or prompt injection attempt was found. The remaining low risk comes from user-directed URL fetching and reading local Obsidian Base files to build templates.

8
Files scanned
475
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
2
False positives ignored
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.

Low
User-Directed Network Fetching
Verdict: TRUE_POSITIVE_LOW_RISK. The skill instructs the agent to fetch a representative URL from the user or inspect a browser DOM snapshot to verify selectors. This is expected for the feature, but it can access external web pages chosen by the user. Confidence: 0.90. Confidence reasoning: The workflow explicitly requires WebFetch or DOM retrieval, but there is no evidence of hidden endpoints, credential transmission, or unauthorized exfiltration.
Low
Local Obsidian Base File Reads
Verdict: TRUE_POSITIVE_LOW_RISK. The skill asks the agent to read local Templates/Bases files so template properties can match the user vault schema. This is legitimate productivity behavior, but users should know local vault metadata may be inspected. Confidence: 0.88. Confidence reasoning: The cited workflow directly instructs reading specific Base files, but the access is scoped to user-selected Obsidian configuration and no network transfer is requested.
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.

Low
Template Syntax Misclassified as Shell Execution
Verdict: FALSE_POSITIVE. The flagged backtick and brace patterns are Markdown inline code and Obsidian Web Clipper template variables, not Ruby or shell execution. Confidence: 0.97. Confidence reasoning: Reviewed references show documentation examples such as variables, filters, YAML snippets, and JSON snippets with no executable script or command runner.
Low
Weak Cryptography Alerts Are Documentation False Positives
Verdict: FALSE_POSITIVE. The flagged text contains words and template variables like description, meta description, and schema fields, not MD5, SHA1, DES, or other weak cryptographic calls. Confidence: 0.98. Confidence reasoning: The cited files are JSON examples and Markdown documentation, with no cryptographic library imports or hashing operations.
Audited by: codex

Feb 24, 2026, 05:32 PM

This is a documentation and guidance skill for creating Obsidian Web Clipper templates. All static scanner findings are false positives: backtick patterns in markdown are template variables, 'weak crypto' detections are double-brace template syntax, and hardcoded URLs are documentation links. No executable code, no network requests initiated by the skill, no file modifications.

8
Files scanned
480
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude