Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This review-analysis skill can unexpectedly spend account credits, including during a documented free preview.
Review before installing. If you proceed, set payment confirmation to 'every time' and verify it before requesting reports. Use quote for price-only requests; do not assume deepdive or omission of --confirm prevents charges. Approve recurring monitoring separately. A combined-cost check and consistent charging documentation are needed.
scripts/ari.pyQuote-only deepdive can execute a chargeable analysis
Unexpected consumption of account credits during a preview. When target is absent and --confirm was supplied, productNote can additionally claim that no charge occurred despite the reachable auto-confirm path.
scripts/ari.pyVOC applies analysis-only spending authorization to collection plus analysis
The workflow can consume more credits than the user's configured no-confirmation limit without presenting the combined quote for approval. Collection can already consume unauthorized credits even if later analysis fails.
The review-comparison description does not disclose that a report request can immediately consume credits under provider-defined first-use exemptions without a user-approved spending limit. Although many expanded workflows require confirmation, these automatic charging instructions create a concrete authorization gap rather than merely a broader feature set.
Although product monitoring is related to review analysis, persistent scheduled watches and price-accepted refreshes introduce materially additional operational and financial scope not disclosed in the description. The chunk primarily documents watch management rather than cross-market review comparison. Because the underlying Python implementation is not supplied, this assessment concerns the exposed commands and does not establish actual billing, storage, or network behavior.
Although product watching could support review analysis, recurring monitoring and explicit acceptance of per-refresh pricing are material capabilities not disclosed in the description. The supplied chunk focuses on managing these watches rather than collecting and comparing reviews across marketplaces. The commands are usage examples; they do not establish that any watch was actually created or any charge incurred.
Product monitoring is related to review analysis, but persistent weekly watches and price acceptance introduce material operational capabilities beyond the declared collection and cross-market comparison purpose. The supplied chunk consists of CLI examples rather than the underlying implementation, so it establishes the exposed operations but does not demonstrate that any watch was actually created or any charge incurred.
The competitor-comparison workflow presents binding a competitor as a route to weekly automatic collection without expressly requiring separate consent for that persistent subscription. Unlike the detailed collect and watch safeguards, this path does not clearly bind authorization to the recurring collection scope or its costs.
Review collection supports the declared purpose, but enabling recurring, potentially paid monitoring is a material operational capability beyond merely collecting and comparing marketplace reviews. The supplied chunk exposes schedule management rather than cross-market analysis. Because the underlying Python implementation is not provided, this assessment is limited to the documented commands and their stated effects.
run_analysis changes an absent confirmation into permission to spend based on the server's autoConfirm field, contradicting the documented explicit --confirm requirement. cmd_voc similarly permits both collection and analysis without that flag, and deepdive can unexpectedly charge through run_analysis even when it intends to request only a quote.
This entry references a policy that permits paid operations based solely on a server-provided autoConfirm flag. The surrounding changelog describes default confirmation bypass rather than necessarily user-authorized spending, creating a risk of unexpected credit consumption; the documentation alone does not establish the runtime implementation.
- 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。
The documented workflow automatically collects reviews, generates a report, and deducts credits without presenting a price for confirmation. Its first-N-operations policy explicitly lacks an amount ceiling, so requesting an analysis can consume more credits than the user anticipated; post-execution charge disclosure and balance checks do not establish spending consent.
- 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。
This is another match on the same confirmation-bypass policy, not a separate vulnerability. Respecting explicit ask-every-time preferences reduces risk, but relying exclusively on server eligibility still permits default credit spending without a user-approved amount limit.
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`，
This duplicates the preceding finding at the same location and describes the same underlying authorization weakness. Avoiding inference from explanatory text is sensible, but a structured server boolean alone does not demonstrate that the user approved uncapped paid execution.
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`，
This extends the same automatic paid-execution policy to multiple analysis types, increasing the operations that can consume credits without contemporaneous price approval. Blocking insufficient balances limits spending to available credits but does not prevent unwanted depletion of purchased or promotional credits.
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.
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.
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)
p = sub.add_parser("version", parents=[common], help="显示 Skill 版本与渠道（无需 Key）")
p.set_defaults(fn=cmd_version)
Without declared permissions the skill's intent is opaque and cannot be validated.
The activation description includes standalone topics such as “localization,” “海外市场” (overseas markets), and “日本站” (Japan marketplace), without requiring a review-analysis intent. These can match translation, market-entry, or marketplace-administration requests unrelated to this skill's review collection and comparison workflows.
The automatic-confirmation rules include provider-defined first-use exemptions without an amount ceiling, not just spending limits chosen by the user. A general request for analysis can therefore initiate collection and analysis charges before the user sees the price.
`voc <ASIN>`（没说站点就用默认的美国站，不要为此追问）。
命中服务端免确认规则（新用户首次体验不看金额 / 账户剩余免确认次数 / 用户自设阈值）且余额充足时，
**直接完成采集 + 生成 + 扣点并归档**，不再停在报价环节。绝不能描述成“先帮你问个价 / 只报价不扣点”。
免确认与否以返回里的 `autoConfirm` 为准，不要自己从提示文案里猜。
- 直接生成成功后，返回结果带 `charges`（采集扣点、分析扣点、合计、扣前/扣后余额）与 `autoConfirmNote`。
**先讲报告，再用一句话转述实际扣点**，不要在拿到结果后再补问「要不要生成」，也不要回头补一次报价。
- 只有在返回 `confirmationRequired: true` 时（余额不足、或用户自行设置了“每次先问”）
This is another occurrence of the same authorization gap: a server autoConfirm flag is treated as sufficient authority to spend credits. That flag can reflect provider defaults rather than a user-approved budget, and reporting the charge afterward does not supply prior consent.
命中服务端免确认规则（新用户首次体验不看金额 / 账户剩余免确认次数 / 用户自设阈值）且余额充足时，
**直接完成采集 + 生成 + 扣点并归档**，不再停在报价环节。绝不能描述成“先帮你问个价 / 只报价不扣点”。
免确认与否以返回里的 `autoConfirm` 为准，不要自己从提示文案里猜。
- 直接生成成功后，返回结果带 `charges`（采集扣点、分析扣点、合计、扣前/扣后余额）与 `autoConfirmNote`。
**先讲报告，再用一句话转述实际扣点**，不要在拿到结果后再补问「要不要生成」，也不要回头补一次报价。
- 只有在返回 `confirmationRequired: true` 时（余额不足、或用户自行设置了“每次先问”）
才报出 `totalCredits` 与余额并等待同意，同意后追加 `--confirm`。
The standard workflow deliberately invokes a potentially charging VOC operation before quoting and tells the agent to discuss cost only after generation. This is unsafe for users who have not established a spending policy, particularly because first-use execution may have no amount ceiling.
1. 运行 `check`，确认账户、邮箱验证状态和可用积点。
2. 用户要 VOC / 评论分析报告时，默认运行 `voc <ASIN> --site <站点>`，**不要再先跑一次报价**。
**返回里有 `autoConfirmed: true`（或直接带 `reportId` / 正文）就说明报告已经生成并扣点了**
（1.5.0：新用户首次体验直接出结果，用户先拿到报告再谈钱）。
此时把报告讲给用户，并转述 `charges` — 本次采集扣了多少、分析扣了多少、合计多少、扣后还剩多少。
**不要在拿到结果后再补问「要不要生成」，也不要再回头补一次报价。**
The instruction mandates generation whenever the server returns autoConfirm, including initial paid runs without an amount limit. This conflates a service-side charging rule with informed user authorization and can cause unexpected account-credit depletion.
- **价格一律以服务端本次报价为准**（`analysis/quote` 与 `collect` 报价返回的 `credits` /
`totalCredits`）。文档与示例里出现的任何单价、页数、合计都只是演示，后台可调，
**不要凭记忆或旧文档报数，也不要把示例价当成承诺价。**
- 报价返回 `autoConfirm: true` 时直接生成，不要再问「要不要」。
生成后一句话交代本次实际扣了多少、扣后余额（读 `charges` 字段）。
1.5.0 起服务端对新用户前几次付费生成不看金额上限：新用户验证邮箱后只给一个 ASIN，就一次性出报告。
- 用户说「以后别问了 / 50 以内直接做」→ 运行 `autoconfirm 50`；说「以后每次先问我」→ `autoconfirm off`；
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.
- 报价返回 `autoConfirm: true` 时直接生成，不要再问「要不要」。
生成后一句话交代本次实际扣了多少、扣后余额（读 `charges` 字段）。
1.5.0 起服务端对新用户前几次付费生成不看金额上限：新用户验证邮箱后只给一个 ASIN，就一次性出报告。
- 用户说「以后别问了 / 50 以内直接做」→ 运行 `autoconfirm 50`；说「以后每次先问我」→ `autoconfirm off`；
说「恢复默认」→ `autoconfirm default`。这是唯一需要你代用户设置的东西，设完复述一句当前规则。
- 报价需要确认时，只说两个数：这次多少积点（取报价返回的 `credits` / `totalCredits`，
**不要自己算、不要写死单价**）、余额多少，然后等用户一个「好」。单价与页数由后台配置决定，
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.
- 报价返回 `autoConfirm: true` 时直接生成，不要再问「要不要」。
生成后一句话交代本次实际扣了多少、扣后余额（读 `charges` 字段）。
1.5.0 起服务端对新用户前几次付费生成不看金额上限：新用户验证邮箱后只给一个 ASIN，就一次性出报告。
- 用户说「以后别问了 / 50 以内直接做」→ 运行 `autoconfirm 50`；说「以后每次先问我」→ `autoconfirm off`；
说「恢复默认」→ `autoconfirm default`。这是唯一需要你代用户设置的东西，设完复述一句当前规则。
- 报价需要确认时，只说两个数：这次多少积点（取报价返回的 `credits` / `totalCredits`，
**不要自己算、不要写死单价**）、余额多少，然后等用户一个「好」。单价与页数由后台配置决定，