審計歷史

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.

The static analysis flagged numerous 'external_commands' issues, but these are false positives. The skill legitimately uses subprocess calls to standard PDF utilities (pdfinfo, pdffonts) for document validation. The 'weak cryptographic algorithm' findings are also false positives - they reference placeholder text in LaTeX templates and documentation, not actual cryptographic implementations. The skill is safe for academic document preparation.

Pure documentation and template management skill with no code execution risks. Scripts only read/write within their own directory using standard Python libraries. No network access, no credential access, no external command injection vectors.