Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This local contract-checking skill does not show data theft or remote execution, but it needs review because some financial/legal checks can return conclusions even when required input columns are missing.
Review this before installing if you will rely on it for accounting, legal, audit, or payment decisions. It appears local and non-exfiltrating, but treat results as a checklist aid only: verify the selected subskill, confirm all required columns are present, and do not rely on a 'success' or clean verdict as proof that the full contract/legal issue was reviewed. Also expect a local usage counter and a five-use gate.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Narrow milestone/payment verification presented as a full contract/legal triage skill is a substantive description-behavior mismatch. In procurement, legal, or finance operations, this can cause users to believe cross-domain contract checks were completed when only a single payment-control workflow was analyzed.
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
node scripts/run.mjs --list # 看覆盖了哪些子问题
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
node scripts/run.mjs --list # 看覆盖了哪些子问题
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
node scripts/run.mjs --list # 看覆盖了哪些子问题
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
node scripts/run.mjs --list # 看覆盖了哪些子问题
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
node scripts/run.mjs --list # 看覆盖了哪些子问题
The module-level contract says that when materials are insufficient, the tool must not give conclusions, but the implementation later proceeds with partial checks and returns a success result. In a legal/finance verification skill, this creates a trust-boundary failure: users may rely on seemingly authoritative conclusions even though required inputs were missing, leading to materially wrong compliance or accounting decisions.
The REQUIRED-column behavior explicitly contradicts the skill's promise to withhold conclusions when inputs are insufficient. Because the tool still produces findings and a verdict, operators may mistake a partial analysis for a complete control check, which is especially risky in contract asset/liability aging review where omissions can mask misstatements.
The inline comment institutionalizes unsafe behavior by stating that conclusions should still be given when required columns are missing. This is dangerous because it normalizes partial-data analysis in a domain where the skill itself promises 'no conclusion' on insufficient materials, increasing the chance that future maintainers preserve or expand the unsafe pattern.
The file implements SaaS vendor invoice reconciliation logic, while the skill manifest presents the skill as a contract/legal expert. This capability mismatch is dangerous because user data may be routed to an unrelated engine path, causing incorrect analysis, data handling outside the declared purpose, and erosion of trust boundaries that downstream orchestration may rely on for authorization or review.
The implementation is materially misaligned with the declared skill purpose: the manifest presents a broad contract/legal expert skill, while this file is a specialized software outsourcing milestone payment checker with subscription gating. In an agent platform, such skill/manifest drift is dangerous because it can cause incorrect routing, unexpected data handling, and hidden behavior that users and reviewers did not consent to, especially when financial/legal conclusions are produced under a misleading identity.
The header comments and help text repeatedly assert 'pure local' and 'all sub-skills in package,' yet the runtime contains explicit branches for subscription-only engines and missing local components. This is dangerous because it undermines user trust and informed consent about what the software actually does, particularly for a legal-analysis skill that may be used on sensitive commercial documents.
The CLI states that all sub-skills are included and fully local, but runtime logic checks for missing engines and blocks some sub-skills as subscription-only. That mismatch can mislead users into exposing sensitive contract data under false assumptions about available functionality and package completeness, especially in a legal/contract-analysis context where predictability and trust are important.
The skill name, summary, primary description, and invocation guidance are presented in Chinese, while the English description is minimal and does not provide equivalent usage details. This creates a locale/language constraint without an explicit user opt-in or a stated region-specific justification, which matches the language-policy concern for natural-language policy violations.
The trigger list includes very generic terms such as “免费”, “对账”, and “核对”, which are common across many unrelated business requests. In an auto-routing skill, this can cause unintended invocation, misclassification of user input, and routing sensitive documents to the wrong sub-skill, increasing the chance of incorrect analysis or unintended data exposure within the agent workflow.
This sub-skill uses broad keywords such as “合同”, “法务”, “采购”, “模板”, and “内审”, which are too common to uniquely identify a contract-comparison request. In a legal/accounting assistant that auto-dispatches based on keywords, this raises the risk of invoking the comparison workflow on unrelated documents, leading to erroneous outputs and unnecessary processing of sensitive contract text.
Reusing generic triggers like “对账” and “核对” across multiple sub-skills creates ambiguity in routing and makes accidental activation likely. Because this package processes finance and contract-related records, ambiguous dispatch can result in the wrong reconciliation logic being applied to user data, producing misleading conclusions or mishandling sensitive records.