Security audit

Business Bankruptcy Marketing Kit

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

The skill is a Markdown-only legal marketing kit with no code execution, but some templates contradict its own compliance promises and could create legal advertising or review-management risk.

Review this skill carefully before installing. It is not a malware-style package, but it generates regulated attorney advertising and public review responses; a Nevada attorney or qualified compliance reviewer should correct the review-gating language, remove client-status and matter-specific public responses, normalize required bankruptcy disclosures, and verify all legal thresholds and rules before use.

A.I.G

Vulnerability Patterns

Skill Instruction HijackingAlters the agent's session goals or safety constraints when the skill loads
Agent Memory PoisoningWrites attacker-controlled rules into memory that affect later sessions
Remote Payload Retrieval and ExecutionFetches external code whose behavior can change after review
Embedded Malicious CodeShips malicious scripts inside the skill and executes them locally
Unauthorized Access and Privilege EscalationObtains permissions beyond the task's legitimate needs

SkillSpector

Vulnerability Patterns

Trigger AbuseOverly Broad Trigger, Shadow Command Trigger, Keyword Baiting Trigger
MCP Tool PoisoningHidden Instructions, Unicode Deception, Parameter Description Injection
Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access

Findings (8)

Intent-Code Divergence

High

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 98% confidence
Finding: The file claims FTC-compliant, non-selective review solicitation, but the final email says 'If you found value in our work together, I'd appreciate a Google review' and separately routes dissatisfied recipients to a private channel before they 'characterize the experience publicly.' This is classic review gating/reputation manipulation behavior that can mislead consumers and create regulatory and platform-compliance exposure.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 76% confidence
Finding: The file repeatedly targets 'Nevada' users and buyers, and the audience definition is limited to Nevada-specific legal practice. Under the policy rule, locale constraints should either offer user choice or be clearly documented as a justified region-specific tool. This marketing file is promotional copy and does not clearly frame the locale restriction as an explicit regional-scope policy or opt-in behavior for the skill itself.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 89% confidence
Finding: The skill is explicitly branded and structured as a Nevada-only legal marketing kit, but it does not include strong operational safeguards to prevent use for other jurisdictions or to require the user to confirm Nevada applicability before generating legal advertising content. In a legal-services context, silently applying Nevada-specific compliance rules to non-Nevada firms could produce inaccurate or unlawful attorney advertising, creating regulatory, malpractice, and client-harm risk.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 89% confidence
Finding: The manifest description is broad marketing copy and does not define any concrete trigger conditions, activation boundaries, or user-intent constraints. In an agent system, that ambiguity can cause the skill to be invoked outside its intended niche, increasing the chance of unsolicited legal guidance, overbroad routing, or misuse in contexts where specialized bankruptcy-law content is inappropriate.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 97% confidence
Finding: The skill states that all bankruptcy attorney ads must include the full debt-relief disclaimer, but many of the provided ad templates only include truncated language such as 'We are a debt relief agency' and omit 'We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.' In a marketing-generation skill, this inconsistency can cause downstream outputs to violate legal/compliance requirements at scale, exposing the user to regulatory, ethics, and advertising-risk harms.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Missing User Warnings

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The outreach explicitly encourages dissatisfied recipients to contact the firm privately before describing their experience publicly, which biases the review funnel and can suppress negative reviews in practice. In a regulated legal-marketing context, this is especially problematic because it conflicts with the file's own stated rule against selective solicitation and may create deceptive reputation-management practices.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The template set states that responses must not confirm or deny whether a reviewer is a client, yet Response 15 distinguishes between 'current or former client' and an erroneous reviewer. That framing can indirectly signal client-status handling and invites a public exchange around whether the reviewer had a relationship with the firm, which is risky in a legal-services context governed by confidentiality rules.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 94% confidence
Finding: Although the document warns not to reference specific matters or confidential details, multiple public response templates mention concrete services or procedural facts such as reorganization, Subchapter V, first-day motions, preference defense, DIP financing, lease strategy, and referrals. If used in response to an actual review, those statements can confirm or strongly imply the nature of the reviewer's legal matter, undermining confidentiality obligations.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.