Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This comparison skill also exposes ongoing paid monitoring, and some actions described as quote-only can spend credits.
Prefer a corrected package that enforces the comparison-only scope before connecting a funded ARI account. If using this version, require confirmation for every charge, use explicit quote commands, choose manual collection for one-time work, and review recurring monitoring plans. Omitting --confirm does not reliably prevent spending.
scripts/ari.pyRecurring paid collection can be enabled without an enforced confirmation gate
The helper can activate continuing billable collection without enforcing the promised cost disclosure and consent. It retrieves pricing and constructs the cost note only after changing the schedule.
scripts/ari.pyDeepdive's quote-only downgrade can still generate a paid report
run_analysis submits the paid analysis request despite the downgrade. For an ASIN absent from the main-product list, deepdive can additionally claim that analysis was downgraded to a quote and no credits were charged, even though the shared helper executed it.
The document supplies executable workflows for paid VOC generation, recurring collection, and account configuration despite declaring a listing-comparison-only entry point. The final fixed-entry restriction mitigates this, but conflicting earlier instructions create a path to out-of-scope actions and credit expenditure; actual code behavior is not independently established.
The exposed watch commands concern monitoring configuration and pricing estimates rather than comparing listing content or review evidence. These capabilities are not declared. The snippet does not establish whether the quoted prices are product prices or service costs, nor does it show the underlying implementation, but its stated watch-and-quote functionality is materially outside the declared listing-comparison scope.
The command requests a category-level ranking and does not identify a primary ASIN or authorized comparison set. This materially differs from the declared scope of product-page comparison. The snippet does not define neg_rate, so it does not establish that the command evaluates actual return rates or any other specifically excluded metric.
Persistent watch creation and recurring charges exceed the declared fixed comparison workflow. Explicit watch-price confirmation reduces unauthorized-billing risk, but the document still instructs a narrowly scoped agent to manage persistent account state.
This duplicates the recurring-watch scope problem: instructions permit persistent monitoring and acceptance of refresh charges within a comparison-only skill. Consent requirements limit the financial exposure, but do not resolve the contradictory capability boundary.
The document introduces recurring collection management outside the declared comparison scope, including weekly defaults and automatic competitor collection after binding. Although several passages require consent or manual scheduling, these mixed instructions can cause a one-time task to acquire continuing credit-consuming side effects.
Creating or resuming recurring watches introduces persistent financial side effects outside the fixed listing-gap workflow. This is another instance of the same scope-boundary defect, not an additional independent vulnerability; explicit price consent is a meaningful mitigation.
The supplied commands expose watch-service quoting and watch-list retrieval rather than product-page comparison. These capabilities are not declared, and the snippet does not establish that they are necessary supporting steps for the stated comparison workflow. The quoted costs appear to concern the watch service, not product prices; the mismatch is the additional watch-service functionality, not evidence of real-time product-price analysis.
The supplied commands expose watch-monitoring functionality rather than explicitly comparing listing fields, images, or reviews between ASINs. This is an undeclared capability in the visible chunk. However, the underlying CLI implementation and monitored fields are not provided, so the code does not establish that any specifically excluded metrics are accessed.
The supplied command targets alerts rather than an explicitly identified listing-comparison operation. Alert functionality is not declared. However, the implementation of scripts/ari.py is absent, so the evidence does not establish what the alerts concern, whether they support listing comparisons, or whether any excluded data such as prices, inventory, or orders is accessed.
run_analysis changes confirm from false to true when the server returns a truthy autoConfirm value and sufficient balance. Consequently, an invocation expected to return only a quote can spend credits without the explicit --confirm promised by the module; cmd_voc similarly permits collection and analysis without that flag.
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.
- 重新发布：各市场首批上架的 1.5.0 包早于免确认修复，新注册的免费版用户仍会被要求先确认报价。
1.5.1 与当前官网下发的修复版一致，市场侧以新版本号覆盖旧包。
- 免确认只认服务端报价返回的 `autoConfirm`；采集报价扣除首次采集免费页；
非美国站首次采集可用赠送积点时不再提示「赠送积点不可用」（行为与修复后的 1.5.0 相同）。
- 命令、字段与计费规则不变，不提高最低支持版本。
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.
- 行为变更：新用户（注册并验证邮箱后）第一次要 VOC，只给 ASIN 即可（站点默认美国站），
`voc` 直接执行——自动补采集（默认 3 页）、生成报告、按服务端定价扣费并归档，
不再停在报价等确认。费用在报告返回的 `charges` 字段透明展示（采集/分析/合计/余额前后）。
- 免确认与否**只认服务端报价返回的 `autoConfirm` 布尔**：服务端策略前 N 次付费生成不看金额上限
（新用户赠送积点按设计覆盖「3 页采集 + 一份 VOC」）；用户自设阈值优先、显式要求「每次先问」
时仍先报价；余额不足不自动。客户端不再从 `autoConfirmNote` 文案或 `autoConfirmRemaining`
自行推断——文案匹配会把 Free 小额提示里的「先确认」误判成用户要求每次询问，恰好挡住新用户。
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.
不再停在报价等确认。费用在报告返回的 `charges` 字段透明展示（采集/分析/合计/余额前后）。
- 免确认与否**只认服务端报价返回的 `autoConfirm` 布尔**：服务端策略前 N 次付费生成不看金额上限
（新用户赠送积点按设计覆盖「3 页采集 + 一份 VOC」）；用户自设阈值优先、显式要求「每次先问」
时仍先报价；余额不足不自动。客户端不再从 `autoConfirmNote` 文案或 `autoConfirmRemaining`
自行推断——文案匹配会把 Free 小额提示里的「先确认」误判成用户要求每次询问，恰好挡住新用户。
- 采集报价同口径扣除服务端 `trialFreePages`（首次采集试用免费页），避免新用户被误报「积点不足」。
- 非美国站：服务端 `credits.gift` 策略下用户首次采集不限站点，`credits/balance` 返回 `giftAllSites`，
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.
不再停在报价等确认。费用在报告返回的 `charges` 字段透明展示（采集/分析/合计/余额前后）。
- 免确认与否**只认服务端报价返回的 `autoConfirm` 布尔**：服务端策略前 N 次付费生成不看金额上限
（新用户赠送积点按设计覆盖「3 页采集 + 一份 VOC」）；用户自设阈值优先、显式要求「每次先问」
时仍先报价；余额不足不自动。客户端不再从 `autoConfirmNote` 文案或 `autoConfirmRemaining`
自行推断——文案匹配会把 Free 小额提示里的「先确认」误判成用户要求每次询问，恰好挡住新用户。
- 采集报价同口径扣除服务端 `trialFreePages`（首次采集试用免费页），避免新用户被误报「积点不足」。
- 非美国站：服务端 `credits.gift` 策略下用户首次采集不限站点，`credits/balance` 返回 `giftAllSites`，
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.
为 true 时赠送积点计入 `nonUsCollectCredits`、`siteNote` 为空；UK/DE/JP 卖家的第一份 VOC 同样一步直出。
- 余额不足仍在执行前拦截（402）并引导充值；定价以服务端配置为准，代码常量仅为兜底。
- 一致性：`analyze` 各类型（insight / keywords / trend / variant / compare）走同一口径，
`autoConfirm=true` 即直接生成并返回 `charges`。
- 文档：移除所有写死的单价与合计示例。采集/分析单价与页数由后台 `pricing` 配置决定，
一律以本次报价返回的 `credits` / `totalCredits` 为准，不得凭文档或记忆报数。
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.
- 能力层收窄：44 个专属包不再只是「声明窄」，包体 `scripts/ari.py` 同时按各自契约裁剪。
构建期用 AST 删除文档未承诺的命令、它们的解析器注册块，以及只被它们引用的辅助函数与
常量；专属包因此不再包含 `export`（任意路径写文件）、`autoconfirm`（撤销逐次确认）、
`workbench`（改写差评处理状态）、`alerts`（标记预警已读）、`competitors`、`schedule`、
`voc` / `analyze` / `charts` / `deepdive` 等母版命令。
- 新增运行期兜底闸：专属包在包内写入 `allowedCommands` 白名单，`ari.py`
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.
def cmd_autoconfirm(args):
"""免确认阈值：不带参数=查看；`autoconfirm 50`=50 积点以内不问；`autoconfirm off`=每次都问；`autoconfirm default`=恢复默认。"""
value = (args.value or "").strip().lower()
if value:
if value in ("off", "ask", "0"):
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.
def cmd_autoconfirm(args):
"""免确认阈值：不带参数=查看；`autoconfirm 50`=50 积点以内不问；`autoconfirm off`=每次都问；`autoconfirm default`=恢复默认。"""
value = (args.value or "").strip().lower()
if value:
if value in ("off", "ask", "0"):
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.
def cmd_autoconfirm(args):
"""免确认阈值：不带参数=查看；`autoconfirm 50`=50 积点以内不问；`autoconfirm off`=每次都问；`autoconfirm default`=恢复默认。"""
value = (args.value or "").strip().lower()
if value:
if value in ("off", "ask", "0"):
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.
limit = int(value)
except ValueError:
emit(error_obj("ARI_BAD_ARGUMENT", 0, "参数不对",
"用法：autoconfirm 50（50 积点以内不问）/ autoconfirm off（每次都问）/ autoconfirm default（恢复默认）"),
args.compact)
return
out = request_json("PUT", "/api/v1/user/autoconfirm", {"limit": limit})
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.
limit = int(value)
except ValueError:
emit(error_obj("ARI_BAD_ARGUMENT", 0, "参数不对",
"用法：autoconfirm 50（50 积点以内不问）/ autoconfirm off（每次都问）/ autoconfirm default（恢复默认）"),
args.compact)
return
out = request_json("PUT", "/api/v1/user/autoconfirm", {"limit": limit})
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.
limit = int(value)
except ValueError:
emit(error_obj("ARI_BAD_ARGUMENT", 0, "参数不对",
"用法：autoconfirm 50（50 积点以内不问）/ autoconfirm off（每次都问）/ autoconfirm default（恢复默认）"),
args.compact)
return
out = request_json("PUT", "/api/v1/user/autoconfirm", {"limit": limit})
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.
return
out = request_json("PUT", "/api/v1/user/autoconfirm", {"limit": limit})
else:
out = request_json("GET", "/api/v1/user/autoconfirm")
if ok(out) and isinstance(data_of(out), dict):
d = data_of(out)
d["note"] = AUTOCONFIRM_MODE_NOTE.get(d.get("mode"), AUTOCONFIRM_MODE_NOTE["ask"]).format(
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.
p.set_defaults(fn=cmd_check)
p = sub.add_parser("autoconfirm", parents=[common],
help="免确认阈值：autoconfirm 50 / autoconfirm off / autoconfirm default；不带参数查看")
p.add_argument("value", nargs="?", default="")
p.set_defaults(fn=cmd_autoconfirm)