ClawHub
Back to skill

Security audit

Utilitarianism

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This is a markdown-only thinking framework for utilitarian analysis and does not request system access, execute code, or hide unrelated behavior.

Installers should understand this skill can influence how an assistant frames ethical trade-offs, but it is transparent about its utilitarian lens and explicitly says rights constraints and uncertainty should be checked separately. It does not add technical privileges or background behavior.

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 88)May include surrounding context.

md
|---|---|
| [D] Omitting identifiable affected parties. | Omitting a cost-bearing group biases the conclusion — not neutral. |
| [D] Claiming net positive welfare without stating the conversion rate. | Every utilitarian analysis embeds a conversion rate; make it explicit. |
| [D] Treating welfare-maximizing as the final answer without checking rights constraints. | Aggregate optimization does not resolve whether non-overridable rights are violated. |
| [D] Using uncertain welfare estimates as if precise. | State uncertainty range; conduct sensitivity analysis. |
| [D] Ignoring second-order welfare effects. | Trace consequence chain at least two orders before concluding. |
| [D] Conflating "most people benefit" with total welfare maximization. | Total welfare = sum of magnitudes, not count of beneficiaries. |

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.