Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This is a documentation-guidance skill with broad triggers and some credential-example guidance to review, but its artifacts do not show hidden execution, persistence, or data theft.
Install this if you want broad documentation-framework help. Review whether you want such broad docs-related triggers, and do not adopt the Stripe-style actual-test-key personalization pattern unless your docs platform masks, scopes, and controls credentials safely.
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
2. Copy the structure into your document
3. Replace placeholder text (marked with `[brackets]`) with your content
4. Remove any optional sections that don't apply
5. Follow the inline guidance comments (marked with `<!-- -->`)
---
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
[minimum configuration code]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
## Verify
<!-- How to confirm the task completed successfully -->
[Verification steps or expected outcome]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
## Authentication
<!-- How to authenticate requests between systems -->
[Authentication setup steps with code]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
## Step 1: [First integration step]
<!-- Show both sides of the integration where relevant -->
[Steps with code examples]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
[codemod or migration script command]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
## [Method] [Path]
<!-- e.g., POST /v1/payments -->
[One sentence: what this endpoint does]
Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.
## [Version] — [Date]
<!-- One sentence summary of the most significant change -->
### Added
- [New feature with link to documentation]
The 'When to Use This Skill' section says the skill is for 'writing, planning, auditing, and improving technical documentation,' which is very broad and overlaps with common documentation requests. It does not provide explicit trigger phrases, scope limits, or negative examples to distinguish when this skill should or should not activate.
The file prescribes English-language stylistic rules such as addressing the reader as 'you,' using active voice, and spelling out acronyms, and later references global readability in ways that assume English as the output language. Because the skill does not clearly offer language or locale choice up front, these defaults can conflict with a policy requiring user opt-in before forcing a specific language or locale.
The skill declares a very broad set of trigger phrases such as "write docs," "document this," "tutorial," and "getting started," which are common in normal developer workflows and can cause the skill to activate in many unrelated contexts. Over-broad activation increases the chance of unintended instruction injection into conversations, crowding out more appropriate skills and making agent behavior less predictable.
The file recommends that documentation examples use a developer's actual test API keys when logged in, which normalizes auto-inserting credentials into rendered docs. Even though these are test keys, exposing or prepopulating secrets in browser-visible examples increases the chance of credential leakage through screenshots, shared sessions, browser extensions, logs, or accidental reuse patterns that later affect live credentials. In a documentation-framework skill, this is more dangerous because it may be adopted as a best practice across many downstream docs implementations.
Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.
curl -X POST https://api.example.com/v1/telemetry/subscribe \
-d callback_url="https://partner.com/telemetry" \
-d device_types[]="sensor.temperature"
Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.
curl -X POST https://api.example.com/v1/telemetry/subscribe \
-d callback_url="https://partner.com/telemetry" \
-d device_types[]="sensor.temperature"
Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.
curl -X POST https://api.example.com/v1/telemetry/subscribe \
-d callback_url="https://partner.com/telemetry" \
-d device_types[]="sensor.temperature"
Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.
curl -X POST https://api.example.com/v1/telemetry/subscribe \
-d callback_url="https://partner.com/telemetry" \
-d device_types[]="sensor.temperature"
The document explicitly states 'Always use "you"' and presents it as a blanket override for all tutorials and related content. This enforces a specific language-style policy without requiring user choice or limiting it to clearly justified regional or compliance needs.
The checklist item 'Localization for key markets' prescribes locale-specific behavior as a maturity requirement, but it does not mention user opt-in, choice, or justification for which locales are prioritized. This can conflict with a language/locale policy that requires explicit choice or documented justification rather than imposing localization direction unconditionally.
This markdown file contains interactive example snippets that show api_key="cs_test_..." and similar client initialization tokens. Because the file does not warn readers that these are placeholder test credentials, users may misunderstand the examples and handle credentials unsafely when copying the snippet.
No suspicious patterns detected.