Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This skill can spend account credits without asking first, despite promising confirmation for its dedicated review-to-action workflow.
Review before installing. Set the account to ask before every charge, use the dedicated operations quote/run workflow, and approve recurring collection separately. For one-time collection, request manual scheduling and check existing schedules. Do not assume analyze or deepdive without --confirm is free.
scripts/ari.pyRecurring billable collection lacks an executable confirmation gate
The commands can enable recurring credit-consuming collection immediately. The schedule command retrieves pricing and returns its cost note only after submitting the change.
scripts/ari.pyQuote-only deepdive fallback can execute paid analysis
The CLI can perform paid VOC analysis despite deepdive's documented preview behavior. When a primary subscription is missing and --confirm was supplied, its product note additionally claims the analysis was downgraded to quotation without charging, even though the shared helper may have executed it.
The declared description covers converting review evidence into action items, but does not disclose ongoing watch management or price-accepted recurring refreshes. These are materially additional capabilities rather than merely implementation details of review analysis. The excerpt shows commands invoking these operations, although the underlying implementation is not supplied.
The specialized product-action skill contains executable workflow instructions for unrelated paid analyses, recurring monitoring, and account-wide confirmation settings. Its final restriction to product/action and explicit approval conflicts with earlier instructions to run paid VOC workflows without asking, creating an authorization ambiguity that can lead an agent outside the advertised scope and consume credits.
The chunk exposes an ongoing monitoring and watch-management capability rather than review-to-action analysis. Retrieving review evidence could support the declared purpose, but creating recurring watches and accepting refresh charges are material additional capabilities not disclosed in the description. The supplied chunk does not show buyer contact, listing edits, procurement orders, or the declared transformation of reviews into action items.
Collecting review evidence can support the declared analysis purpose, but configuring persistent, potentially billable collection schedules is an additional operational capability not disclosed in the description. The chunk does not show review-to-action analysis itself. It also provides no evidence of buyer outreach, listing edits, or purchase ordering.
The comparison workflow recommends binding a competitor and states that binding starts weekly collection, without explicitly attaching a recurring-cost approval step to that command. Approval of a one-time comparison does not authorize ongoing competitor collection, making this a consent gap despite the general schedule-authorization language elsewhere.
Recurring monitoring, competitor watches, and acceptance of refresh pricing are substantive capabilities not disclosed by the review-to-action description. They extend beyond supporting the conversion of review evidence into improvement tasks. The chunk contains command examples rather than their implementations, so it does not establish that monitoring or charges actually occurred. It also provides no evidence of buyer contact, listing edits, or purchase orders.
The supplied command performs category-level leaderboard analysis, a distinct capability not described in the declared review-to-action workflow. It does not visibly combine product details with reviews or generate action items. The implementation of ari.py is not supplied, so no additional network access, data modification, or other side effects can be established.
The exposed functionality concerns a watch/monitoring service and its pricing, which the declared review-to-action purpose does not mention. The supplied chunk does not show review analysis or action-task generation, nor establish that watch operations support those tasks. It also does not demonstrate enabling watches, making purchases, or contacting buyers.
提供的命令涉及监控配置和费用查询，而非评论分析或改进任务生成；声明未说明这些监控相关能力，代码也未展示它们与评论转行动流程的支持关系。该片段未显示创建监控、自动联系买家、修改页面或采购下单，不能据此推断存在这些行为。
run_analysis converts an absent --confirm into authorization to spend based on a server-provided autoConfirm value, contradicting the module's explicit-confirmation contract. The same mechanism in cmd_voc can authorize both collection and analysis, and deepdive also inherits run_analysis's bypass, allowing ostensibly unconfirmed requests to consume credits.
The changelog describes treating a server-provided autoConfirm flag as sufficient authorization to skip confirmation for credit-consuming operations. In the surrounding policy, this flag can reflect a service-defined promotional allowance rather than explicit user consent, potentially allowing unexpected credit expenditure. This is a documented design concern; the supplied file does not establish whether this dedicated skill exposes the affected execution paths.
- 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 policy permits the first N paid generations without an amount ceiling, based on server policy rather than affirmative spending authorization. Requesting a report or supplying an ASIN does not necessarily authorize every automatically added collection and analysis charge. Respecting explicit ask-first preferences and blocking insufficient balances reduce exposure but do not establish consent for users who have not configured a preference.
- 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 occurrence belongs to the same automatic-spending policy, not a separate vulnerability in parsing autoConfirmNote or autoConfirmRemaining. Using a structured Boolean instead of interpreting prose is appropriate, but that Boolean should not replace user authorization when the service grants uncapped automatic paid generations. Available balance and promotional credits limit possible losses without resolving the consent gap.
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 finding duplicates the automatic-spending concern at the same location and should not be counted as an additional independent issue. The surrounding text authorizes paid execution from a server policy flag without establishing prior user approval of the cost. Parsing structured fields is not itself dangerous; conflating service eligibility with user consent is the problem.
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`，
The changelog extends immediate paid execution to multiple analysis types whenever autoConfirm is true. Returning charges afterward provides transparency but cannot prevent an unauthorized expenditure, and broader command coverage expands the same consent-policy weakness. Actual reachability in this dedicated skill remains unverified because only the changelog was provided.
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.
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 skill allows a service-defined first-use exemption with no amount limit to trigger collection, analysis, and credit deduction before cost approval. A backend autoConfirm flag can reflect vendor defaults rather than user consent, so it is not sufficient authorization for spending.
`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 instruction treats the returned autoConfirm value as decisive permission to charge, including when eligibility comes from service-granted exemptions rather than a user-selected threshold. Reporting charges afterward provides transparency but cannot replace advance authorization.
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 expressly skips a quote and invokes a command that may already generate a report and deduct credits. This defeats the specialized skill's later quote-and-confirm rule and exposes users requesting analysis to costs disclosed only after execution.
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 passage explicitly authorizes first-time paid generation without an amount ceiling and without asking the user about the cost. User-configured thresholds can legitimately support automation, but service-assigned first-run exemptions do not establish equivalent consent.
- **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。