Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This feature-ranking skill exposes broader paid services and can spend account credits without clear approval.
Review before installing. Require approval of each quoted cost, disable account auto-confirmation, and separately approve recurring collection. Request a corrected package that enforces its advertised feature-ranking scope and fixes the quote-only fallback; conversation instructions alone do not reliably enforce these limits.
scripts/ari.pyQuote-only deepdive can silently become a paid analysis
Account credits can be consumed and a report generated when the documented command behavior promises only a quote. For a missing main subscription, the subsequent productNote can also incorrectly claim that no credits were deducted.
scripts/ari.pyRecurring paid collection changes lack an enforceable confirmation gate
A direct helper invocation can enable continuing credit consumption without first presenting and confirming recurring costs. Approval for a one-time analysis or competitor comparison does not establish approval for ongoing collection.
The document mixes a feature-ranking-only entry point with general operational workflows and instructions to spend credits based on server-default auto-confirmation. The closing fixed-workflow and explicit-confirmation requirements mitigate the risk but conflict with earlier instructions, creating a plausible path to out-of-scope paid execution; the supplied material does not verify the additional code behaviors alleged by the scanner.
The supplied commands concern watch services and their pricing, rather than analyzing reviews or ranking product-feature improvements. These are undeclared capabilities with no demonstrated supporting role in the stated purpose. The snippet does not establish sales forecasting, budget approval, or automatic purchasing, so those behaviors are not inferred.
Recurring watch management and explicit price acceptance are substantive capabilities not disclosed by a description limited to product-feature prioritization. Although monitoring results could inform prioritization, configuring ongoing scheduled refreshes with price acceptance goes beyond merely retrieving supporting evidence. The chunk contains command examples rather than implementation, so it does not establish that charges or procurement actually occurred.
Recurring watch management and price acceptance are material capabilities not disclosed by the feature-prioritization description. Although monitoring could supply evidence for prioritization, these commands establish and manage ongoing activity rather than merely analyze evidence or rank features. The supplied chunk does not show the underlying CLI implementation, so it does not establish that charges occur, purchases are executed, or sales are forecast.
Retrieving monitoring data could support evidence-based feature prioritization, but managing recurring watches with price-acceptance parameters is a material additional capability not disclosed by the feature-ranking-only description. The excerpt contains no feature-ranking logic. It also does not establish sales forecasting, budget approval, or automatic procurement, so those behaviors are not attributed to it.
Collecting reviews can support feature prioritization, but configuring recurring, potentially billable monitoring is a distinct operational capability not disclosed in the description. The snippet therefore extends beyond merely ranking product features. It does not establish automated purchasing, sales forecasting, or budget approval. This assessment is limited to the shown commands and comments; the implementation of scripts/ari.py was not supplied.
The competitor workflow states that binding a competitor automatically enables weekly collection, without an accompanying step that obtains consent for that recurring collection. Authorization for a one-time comparison does not necessarily authorize an ongoing collection relationship or its possible charges; broader scheduling safeguards reduce but do not resolve this ambiguity.
The supplied commands expose watch-service pricing and watch-listing functionality rather than analyzing review evidence or ranking product improvements. These are distinct capabilities not described in the declared purpose, and the snippet provides no connection establishing them as supporting implementation details. It does not show budget approval, purchasing, or modification of watches.
The instructions revive an unanswered quotation in a later conversation and direct immediate report generation if server auto-confirmation permits it. Silence is not authorization, and an idle product record does not prove current user intent to incur charges; the final explicit-confirmation requirement conflicts with this instruction rather than reliably preventing it.
run_analysis changes an absent confirmation into authorization based on a server-provided autoConfirm value, permitting credit-consuming requests without --confirm. cmd_voc similarly authorizes both collection and analysis, and deepdive can unexpectedly execute analysis despite describing its fallback as quote-only. This contradicts the CLI's explicit-confirmation contract and makes apparently noncommittal calls financially consequential.
This entry endorses using the service's autoConfirm flag to bypass confirmation for credit-consuming operations, without establishing that the user previously authorized that spending. Free credits and balance checks reduce exposure but do not establish consent; this is a documented authorization-policy concern, not proof that the affected execution path exists in this specialized package.
- 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 surrounding entry explicitly describes automatically collecting data, generating a report, and deducting credits without first presenting the price for approval. A service-controlled allowance for the first N paid operations has no stated monetary ceiling, so a request for analysis can cause unexpected credit consumption; post-operation charge disclosure does not prevent it.
- 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 match concerns the same authorization issue: the service's boolean determines whether paid work proceeds, while the default first-N policy explicitly lacks an amount ceiling. Respecting user-set thresholds and insufficient-balance checks limits harm but does not substitute for initial spending authorization.
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 is a duplicate match of the same documented spending-authorization weakness, not a separate exploit. Relying solely on autoConfirm can allow server policy to authorize deductions that the user has not explicitly approved, despite protections for explicit opt-outs and insufficient balances.
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 entry extends the same automatic paid-execution policy to multiple analysis types. Returning charges afterward provides transparency but cannot prevent unauthorized credit consumption; the changelog alone does not establish which of these commands remain available in this specialized skill.
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`
Without declared permissions the skill's intent is opaque and cannot be validated.
The auto-confirmation rules include server-granted first-run exemptions without an amount limit, not just user-configured spending authority. Treating those defaults as consent can spend account credits before disclosing cost, contrary to this specialized skill's explicit quote-first requirement.
`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”）
The server's autoConfirm response is treated as sufficient authority to collect data, generate a report, and deduct credits. A service's eligibility decision is not equivalent to informed user spending consent, especially when first-run defaults bypass an amount cap.
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 workflow deliberately invokes a potentially charging command before obtaining a quote and says to discuss charges only after generation. A report request may establish task intent, but it does not necessarily authorize undisclosed credit expenditure, and this instruction contradicts the fixed entry point's confirmation rule.
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。**
This instruction explicitly permits early paid generations without an amount ceiling based on a server default. Reporting the deduction afterward does not substitute for authorization and can unexpectedly deplete available credits.
- **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，
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.
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，
商品评论不够这么多页时只收实际采到的页数，差额自动退回（`pricingNote` 已写好这句）。不要罗列参数。
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.
**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，
商品评论不够这么多页时只收实际采到的页数，差额自动退回（`pricingNote` 已写好这句）。不要罗列参数。
**新手（`check` 返回 `autoConfirm.mode` 为 `first_runs` / `free_small`，或问"然后呢"）**
- 报告讲完只推一个下一步，附接口返回的成本，不写死月费用。用户同意再 `schedule --set weekly`。
- 不解释命令名，不列功能清单。用户问「还能做什么」时按他的产品状态给一条建议，不超过三句。