ClawHub
Back to skill

Security audit

Personal Ritual Designer

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill is a low-risk personal reflection tool that designs rituals from user input without network access, credential use, persistence, or hidden privileged behavior.

This appears safe to install from a security perspective. Users should treat its ritual and wellness suggestions as self-reflection rather than medical or mental-health advice, and publishers may want to narrow trigger phrases and clarify language behavior for a cleaner user experience.

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
  • Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
  • Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
  • Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
  • Supply ChainUnpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code
Findings (4)

Vague Triggers

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
92% confidence
Finding

The trigger phrases are fairly broad, natural-language requests such as 'morning ritual' and 'grounding practice', which could cause the skill to activate when a user is speaking generally rather than explicitly invoking this skill. In this skill's context, the risk is limited because the skill is non-privileged and does not call external APIs, but unintended activation can still confuse users and route them into an unexpected workflow.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
92% confidence
Finding

The README includes a full example scenario and response in Chinese, but the skill description does not say it is intended specifically for Chinese-speaking users or that users can choose their preferred language. This can conflict with language/locale policy expectations because it implicitly steers output into a specific language without opt-in.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
91% confidence
Finding

The file is primarily written in English, but Scenario 4 switches to Chinese in both the heading and example content. Because the skill does not state that multilingual output is optional or user-selected, this can be read as imposing a language/locale variant without explicit opt-in.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
88% confidence
Finding

The "language": "en" setting specifies a single language, but the file does not indicate that users can opt into another language or that English-only behavior is required for a documented regional or compliance reason. This can violate language/locale policy when a skill imposes a language without user choice.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.