Versioned security assessment

Report ID: SA-3B94AAE5

7/1/2026, 3:41:12 AM

ui-ux-pro-max security assessment v2

Skill Security Certification Report

Audit History
Audit model: codex Historical report
Skill name
ui-ux-pro-max
Version
v2
Maintainer
ZhanlinCui
Coverage
28 Files scanned · 3,254 Lines analyzed
Policy version
Unavailable

Highest confirmed finding severity

Medium

2 confirmed security findings require attention.

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 produced many high and critical alerts, but review shows most are false positives from UI guidance text, CSV examples, documentation URLs, and command snippets. No prompt-injection text, credential exfiltration, network beaconing, or malicious command execution was confirmed. The real concern is a local persistence feature that writes markdown files using user-controlled output directory, project, and page names, so publication should include a filesystem warning.

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

28 Files scanned · 3,254 Lines analyzed

3 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 2 evidence locations

Network access

May connect to external services.

Not recorded by this audit

Filesystem access

May read or write local files.

Observed in 2 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 1 evidence location

Capability review items (1)
Low
Installer Command Snippets Require User Action
The skill documentation includes brew, sudo apt, and winget installation commands for Python prerequisites. These are visible setup instructions, not automatic command execution by the skill.
The commands are fenced documentation examples and there is no script path that runs them automatically. They still merit low-risk disclosure because sudo is suggested to users.

Risk findings

Confirmed security concerns are separated from items that still need review.

Confirmed security concerns (2)

RISK-001 Medium
User-Controlled Design-System File Writes
The CLI accepts --output-dir and --page, then persist_design_system builds paths and writes MASTER.md plus optional page markdown files. This appears intended and requires the user to run the persist option, but project and page names are only lightly transformed and can influence local write paths.
The file writes are directly confirmed in the script, and their destination is influenced by CLI arguments and generated project names. Risk is moderate because writes are local markdown persistence, not hidden execution or exfiltration.
RISK-002 Low
Static Network and Secret Findings Are Guideline Examples
Fetch calls, process.env references, .env mentions, API secret labels, and documentation URLs appear inside framework guidance CSV rows. They describe recommended and discouraged application patterns rather than code executed by this skill.
The cited lines are CSV guidance records with Do and Do not columns, not executable code paths. This strongly supports a false-positive assessment for those static findings.

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 (2)
Low
Keylogger and Reconnaissance Alerts Are Text-Match False Positives
Keylogger-related alerts map to phrases such as every keystroke, input handlers, hook rules, and testing guidance. No evidence found of key capture, surveillance logic, or system reconnaissance behavior.
The suspicious words are embedded in ordinary UX and framework examples. I did not find code that registers global keyboard capture or transmits input data.
Low
Prompt Injection Review Found No Evidence
Targeted review did not find instructions claiming special authority, telling the auditor to ignore prior instructions, or asking to skip security analysis. No evidence found of prompt-injection attempts in the reviewed files.
The reviewed skill header and guidance describe UI/UX behavior without attempting to override evaluator instructions. Confidence is high but not absolute because only targeted review was performed.

Verify and export

The manifest and lockfile bind install artifacts to cryptographic hashes. This integrity claim is separate from the security assessment.

Audit attestation: not_attestable