Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This scenario-analysis skill exposes broader account controls and recurring monitoring, and some commands can spend credits without clear advance approval.
Review before installing. Set ARI to ask before every charge, keep collection manual unless you approve recurring costs, and request a build that enforces scenario-only access. Omitting --confirm does not reliably make deepdive or analyze a free preview.
scripts/ari.pyRecurring paid collection can be enabled without an executable confirmation gate
A premature invocation can activate repeated collection charges before the user approves the recurring cost.
scripts/ari.pyDeepdive's quote-only path can silently become a paid analysis
The helper issues the paid analysis request without the command's promised confirmation. In the missing-product branch, the output can also claim that analysis was downgraded and no credits were charged despite execution.
The document includes actionable advertising, account-setting, paid-analysis, and monitoring workflows despite declaring a scenario-only purpose. Its final fixed-entry restriction mitigates this concern but conflicts with earlier instructions calling this a general-purpose entry, creating a credible path to out-of-scope actions and unintended charges; the claimed code behavior cannot be independently verified from this file.
Although the commands concern Amazon products, they expose ongoing monitoring, scheduling, and pricing acceptance rather than merely extracting usage insights. These are material capabilities not disclosed by the description, rather than incidental implementation details. The supplied chunk does not show review analysis or scenario extraction; it also does not establish demographic inference, advertising, or unsupported marketing claims.
The declared purpose describes extracting scenario insights, but the chunk additionally exposes persistent monitoring lifecycle operations and price-acceptance actions. These are material capabilities beyond a supporting implementation detail of review analysis. The underlying Python implementation is not supplied, so actual billing, network access, and the contents of monitoring outputs cannot be verified.
Persistent, scheduled monitoring with watch management and price acceptance is a substantive capability beyond the declared extraction of user-scenario insights. Although monitoring Amazon products could support those insights, the recurring service and pricing commitments are not disclosed. The supplied chunk lists CLI commands rather than their implementation, so it establishes the exposed functionality but does not prove execution, charges, or specific downstream data access.
The comparison workflow says that binding a competitor causes automatic weekly collection but does not explicitly require separate approval of that recurring collection or its cost. Approval of a one-time comparison could therefore be stretched into an ongoing paid commitment, despite stronger consent rules elsewhere in the document.
The description presents an insight-extraction capability but does not disclose management of recurring, potentially billable collection schedules. Enabling weekly collection changes ongoing service behavior beyond merely processing reviews and product details. The snippet does not show the underlying implementation, so it does not establish how collection or billing is performed.
The visible commands concern watch-service administration and pricing rather than extracting usage insights from reviews or product details. These capabilities are not declared, and the supplied chunk does not establish that they support the stated analysis purpose. The underlying ari.py implementation is not provided, so this assessment is limited to the commands and their accompanying comment.
The supplied command requests a negative-review-rate leaderboard, a materially different analytical output from the narrowly declared scenario-insight purpose. ARI usage itself is consistent with the description. The implementation of scripts/ari.py is not supplied, so no additional data access, advertising, demographic inference, or other hidden behavior can be established.
run_analysis converts an unconfirmed invocation into a paid execution when the server returns a truthy autoConfirm value, contradicting the documented explicit --confirm requirement. cmd_voc similarly permits collection and analysis without that flag, and deepdive can consequently charge despite describing its analysis as quote-only. The demonstrated impact is unauthorized consumption of account credits, not proven unrestricted monetary billing.
In context, the server-provided autoConfirm flag permits credit-consuming operations without a separate price confirmation, including for newly registered users. A server eligibility decision is not itself evidence of user spending authorization; the changelog documents this authorization gap, although implementation enforcement cannot be verified from this file.
- 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 interprets a request containing only an ASIN as permission to collect data, generate a report, and deduct credits without confirming the price. The initial automatic-spending policy explicitly lacks an amount ceiling; reporting charges afterward and checking available balance do not establish prior 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 passage describes the same automatic-spending authorization gap: initial paid generations can proceed without an amount ceiling based on server policy. Respecting user-defined thresholds and explicit requests for confirmation reduces the risk, but does not establish consent for users who have not configured either.
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 detection of the authorization issue at the same location, not an additional vulnerability. The danger comes from permitting credit expenditure under a server-selected policy without demonstrated user opt-in, rather than from using a structured Boolean instead of interpreting explanatory text.
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 the same server-triggered automatic charging policy to multiple analysis types, broadening opportunities for unexpected credit consumption. Balance checks and returned charge details limit or expose expenditure but do not replace authorization before it occurs; this is another manifestation of the same underlying issue.
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})
Without declared permissions the skill's intent is opaque and cannot be validated.
The auto-confirmation rules include service-defined first-use exemptions with no amount limit, not just spending thresholds explicitly chosen by the user. Treating those defaults as consent can spend credits before the user learns the price, contrary to the fixed entry's mandatory quotation and confirmation rule.
`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”）
A server autoConfirm flag is treated as sufficient permission to charge, even when it reflects promotional defaults rather than a user-selected limit. Reporting the charge afterward provides transparency but does not 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 workflow explicitly skips quotation and invokes a command that may already generate and charge for a report before returning. A request for analysis does not necessarily authorize an undisclosed charge, especially when the skill's fixed entry promises quote-first 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。**
The skill explicitly excludes advertising use yet instructs the agent to produce PPC-related keywords and proactively promote advertising use of review data. This contradicts the advertised purpose boundary and can route a scenario-only session into prohibited, potentially paid advertising assistance.
This instruction again permits paid generation based on a service auto-confirmation flag and explicitly describes uncapped initial paid runs. A current quote is safer than an unknown price, but automatically accepting it still lacks user authorization when the flag comes from service defaults.
- **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，