ClawHub
Back to skill

Security audit

Candidate Screening Rubric

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill is a transparent hiring-screening aid that handles sensitive candidate materials but includes appropriate evidence, bias-check, redaction, and human-review safeguards.

Use this only with candidate information you are allowed to process, redact direct identifiers where possible, and treat the Advance/Hold/Decline result as a draft screening aid for human review rather than an automated employment decision.

A.I.G

Vulnerability Patterns
  • Skill Instruction HijackingAlters the agent's session goals or safety constraints when the skill loads
  • Agent Memory PoisoningWrites attacker-controlled rules into memory that affect later sessions
  • Remote Payload Retrieval and ExecutionFetches external code whose behavior can change after review
  • Embedded Malicious CodeShips malicious scripts inside the skill and executes them locally
  • Unauthorized Access and Privilege EscalationObtains permissions beyond the task's legitimate needs

SkillSpector

Vulnerability Patterns
  • Excessive AgencyUnrestricted Tool Access, Autonomous Decision Making, Scope Creep
  • Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
  • Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
  • Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
  • Supply ChainUnpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code
Findings (1)

Autonomous Decision Making

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
75% confidence
Finding

Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.

Content

Scanner excerpt · SKILL.md (reported line 91)May include surrounding context.

md
| --- | --- |
| Affinity / similarity | Did the score lean on shared school, employer, or hometown? Remove and rescore on evidence. |
| Halo / horn | Are all items uniformly strong or uniformly weak without differentiation? Add the contrary evidence the materials contain. |
| Recency / tenure heuristic | Did the score penalize a gap or a short tenure without checking the supplied explanation? Re-anchor to evidence the candidate or call notes provided. |
| Name / photo / demographic | Did any inference draw on a name, photo, gender, age signal, accent, parental status, disability, or other protected characteristic? Remove without exception. |
| Pattern-matching to a "typical" hire | Did the rubric implicitly require the candidate to look like prior hires (same title path, same companies)? Restate the requirement in skills/outcomes terms and rescore. |
| Generic praise / generic criticism | Does any rationale use vague language ("smart", "not technical enough") without citing evidence? Replace with the cited line. |

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.