Business Entity Disputes Kit

• Outcome: Pass
• Latest audit: Jun 2, 2026, 1:26 AM
• Version:
  1.0.1

Overview

This is a text-only legal marketing prompt kit with no executable behavior, but users should not rely on its compliance claims without attorney review.

Install only if you want prompt templates for Nevada legal marketing. Do not treat 'bar-compliant,' 'pre-screened,' or 'audit PASS' as legal approval; have qualified Nevada counsel review statutes, comparisons, testimonials, review requests, disclosures, and platform rules before publishing any generated content.

SkillSpector

By NVIDIA

Vulnerability Patterns

• MCP Tool Poisoning: Hidden Instructions, Unicode Deception, Parameter Description Injection
• Prompt Injection: Instruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
• Data Exfiltration: External Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
• Privilege Escalation: Excessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
• Supply Chain: Unpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code

Findings (4)

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

• Confidence: 94% confidence
• Finding: The document asserts that all outputs are 'pre-screened' for SCR 192, RPC 7.1, RPC 7.3, and FTC compliance, but the skill content shown provides no verification logic, review workflow, or enforcement mechanism to support that claim. In a legal-marketing context, users may rely on this representation and publish noncompliant attorney advertising, creating regulatory, ethics, and client-harm risk through misplaced trust in the skill's outputs.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

• Confidence: 94% confidence
• Finding: The prompt explicitly requires compliance with Nevada advertising rules, but the embedded exemplar Q&A text includes comparative claims such as Nevada standards being 'stronger than many other states,' 'heavier than in most states,' and having a 'procedural advantage.' That contradiction can cause downstream generation of non-compliant legal advertising copy, creating regulatory and reputational risk for users who rely on the skill.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

• Confidence: 92% confidence
• Finding: The line includes comparative superiority language in a context that is supposed to avoid unjustified superiority claims. Because this is legal marketing content, even subtle comparative wording can be propagated into public-facing ads or profiles and expose the attorney to ethics complaints or platform policy issues.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

• Confidence: 90% confidence
• Finding: The prompt directs generation of referral/counsel ad copy emphasizing specialization/boutique positioning, which can easily drift into implied superiority without substantiation. In a regulated legal-advertising setting, that increases the chance of producing misleading promotional claims that users may publish verbatim.

VirusTotal

64/64 vendors flagged this skill as clean.