Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This listing-check skill exposes broader account controls and can spend service credits during operations described as free previews.
Prefer a corrected version that enforces listing-only commands and approval before spending. If using this version, enable 'ask before every charge,' request manual collection, and review recurring monitors. Omitting --confirm does not guarantee a free preview.
scripts/ari.pyRead-only deepdive can silently invoke paid analysis
The account can lose credits and receive an unwanted archived report during an invocation documented as non-charging by default.
The narrowly described diagnostic skill includes instructions for account-wide spending settings, recurring services, and paid generation without transaction-specific confirmation. The final audit/listing-only rule and explicit consent requirements mitigate this, but contradictory general workflows still create an actionable path to unintended spending outside the advertised scope.
Persistent monitoring can create ongoing account obligations beyond a one-time listing diagnosis. The watch workflow requires explicit pricing consent, substantially reducing immediate risk, but its executable instructions conflict with the package's fixed diagnostic entry point.
Recurring collection is a persistent financial side effect outside the stated one-time diagnostic purpose, and collect defaults new products to weekly scheduling. Instructions to obtain recurring authorization and use manual scheduling otherwise are protective, but relying on the agent to reconcile these defaults with the fixed entry point leaves an avoidable consent risk.
This duplicates the recurring-monitoring scope issue: a diagnostic package also instructs the agent to create and manage persistent billable watches. Explicit consent and ownership checks reduce the risk, but do not resolve the conflicting instructions about which workflows this skill may execute.
The competitor-binding instruction says that adding a competitor triggers automatic weekly collection, but does not locally require separate authorization for that recurring consequence. Consent to a one-time comparison does not establish consent to ongoing collection and any associated credit consumption.
This is another instance of recurring watch management being exposed inside a narrowly scoped diagnostic skill. Price acceptance and explicit user consent mitigate unauthorized activation, but the conflicting scope still permits the agent to select a persistent account-changing workflow that this package claims not to execute.
The supplied commands concern monitoring-service pricing and watch enumeration, neither of which is declared as part of the narrowly scoped Listing health diagnostic skill. No page-completeness or review-evidence checks are shown. The snippet does not establish that watches are created or modified.
The supplied commands concern a watch/monitoring service rather than listing-content health checks. Neither the description nor the snippet establishes these capabilities as supporting the declared diagnostic workflow. The snippet does not show creating watches or changing settings, so those behaviors are not inferred.
The command explicitly selects --type compare and supplies --competitor, indicating a comparative analysis rather than the declared listing-health diagnostic. Competitor comparison is not described as part of the skill's purpose. The supplied chunk does not show the underlying script, so its precise outputs and additional behavior cannot be established.
Review analysis can support listing-health checks, but this command requests a category-level ranking without identifying a listing or checking its page completeness. That is a broader category-analysis capability not disclosed in the description. The supplied chunk does not establish what the confirmation flag does or show the underlying API implementation.
The supplied command explicitly selects '--type compare' and supplies '--competitor', indicating a competitive-comparison workflow rather than an explicitly identified listing-health check. This is an undeclared capability. The underlying script is not supplied, so the command alone does not establish what data is accessed or whether the comparison also includes health diagnostics.
run_analysis replaces missing caller confirmation with a server-supplied autoConfirm value and then invokes a chargeable endpoint, contradicting the explicit --confirm contract. cmd_voc similarly permits collection and analysis without that flag, and deepdive's intended quote-only downgrade can be defeated by the same shared logic.
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`
Without declared permissions the skill's intent is opaque and cannot be validated.
The auto-confirm rule conflates user-defined spending thresholds with service-defined first-use exemptions that have no amount limit. A server decision to allow charging is not proof of user authorization, and reporting the charge afterward does not prevent unauthorized credit consumption.
`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 repeats the rule that a returned autoConfirm flag is sufficient to proceed with a charge. That flag can represent a provider default rather than a user-approved budget, so the workflow lacks a reliable distinction between spending eligibility and spending 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 instructs the agent to invoke a potentially chargeable VOC operation without a prior quote and discuss payment only after generation. A request for analysis does not necessarily authorize an undisclosed charge, and the conflicting audit-only confirmation rule makes execution unpredictable.
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 manifest expressly excludes advertising, yet the instructions route advertising requests into paid keyword analysis. Although quotation and confirmation reduce billing risk, this directly conflicting routing can steer the agent into an excluded paid workflow rather than the fixed listing audit.
This passage explicitly permits initial paid generations without an amount ceiling and treats providing an ASIN as sufficient to proceed. That can spend the user's balance before the user learns the price, even though the instructions disclose actual consumption afterward.
- **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，