ClawHub
Back to skill

Security audit

Trust Brand Architecture

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This is a text-only brand strategy coaching skill, and the flagged cyanide mention is historical context rather than an instruction or capability.

Installers should treat this as a business/brand analysis aid, not legal, regulatory, crisis-management, or product-safety advice. The historical crisis example is contextual and should not be followed as a real-time emergency playbook.

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
  • 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
  • Excessive AgencyUnrestricted Tool Access, Autonomous Decision Making, Scope Creep
Findings (1)

Harmful Content Injection

Critical
Category
Prompt Injection
Confidence
70% confidence
Finding

This content may contain harmful instructions that could cause physical harm if followed. CRITICAL: Review carefully before use.

Content

Scanner excerpt · examples/johnson-johnson-tylenol-crisis-recovery-1982-1983.md (reported line 7)May include surrounding context.

md
> *Example for the [trust-brand-architecture](../SKILL.md) skill.*

The Johnson & Johnson Tylenol crisis of September–October 1982 is one of the most primary-source-documented brand trust recovery cases in business history, and it provides a near-perfect illustration of the Trust Layer Architecture sequence.

**The situation:** In September 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died after taking Tylenol capsules laced with potassium cyanide. At the time of the deaths, Tylenol held approximately 35% of the U.S. analgesic market — a $1.2 billion annual business. The source of the tampering was external (a criminal act, not a manufacturing failure), but Tylenol's name was the vehicle.

**Layer 1 intervention — Functional Trust, before anything else:** J&J CEO James Burke's first decision was a complete recall of 31 million bottles of Tylenol, at an estimated cost exceeding $100 million, before the FDA had recommended or required a recall. The decision was documented in real time in *The Wall Street Journal* (October 1982) and reconstructed in Harvard Business School Case 9-583-043 (1983), *Tylenol's Comeback*. The mechanism was unambiguous: before any reputation management, before any values statement, restore functional safety. Burke did not send press releases explaining J&J's values. He removed every bottle from every shelf.

This is Layer 1 logic: the functional promise (this product will not harm you) must be re-established through operational action before any other trust layer can be addressed. A Layer 3 response — "we are a company that cares about safety" — without the Layer 1 recall would have produced exactly the perception-reality gap the framework identifies as the most damaging failure mode.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.