Security audit

Lisbon

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This is a Markdown-only Lisbon guidance skill with broad but disclosed travel, relocation, and local-advice content, and no evidence of hidden execution, persistence, or data access.

This skill is reasonable to install for Lisbon travel, relocation, cost, visa, neighborhood, and local-practical guidance. Treat its prices, visa rules, legal, healthcare, and business details as starting points and verify current official sources before making important decisions; also be aware it may activate broadly for Portugal-related questions.

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 (11)

Vague Triggers

Medium

Confidence: 94% confidence
Finding: The activation rule is very broad, covering nearly any question about Lisbon or Portugal, which can cause the skill to trigger in contexts where it is only partially relevant. This is not a direct code-execution or data-exfiltration issue, but it can lead to over-application of the skill, crowding out more appropriate domain skills and increasing the chance of off-target guidance.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 76% confidence
Finding: The statement "Don't speak Spanish expecting understanding. It's rude" is a prescriptive language-use rule embedded in the skill content. This can be interpreted as a language/locale policy constraint without user opt-in or clear contextual framing, rather than neutral guidance about local etiquette.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: The guidance says learning Portuguese is 'highly recommended' because it 'shows respect' and 'opens doors,' which can read as a prescriptive language expectation rather than a neutral option. Under the policy, language-related guidance should avoid implying a required language unless the user is given a clear choice or the constraint is justified.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 82% confidence
Finding: The guidance labels 'Portuguese spoken primarily' as a positive signal, which imposes a language preference in natural-language instructions. Because the file does not offer an alternative language preference or indicate this is optional, it can conflict with a policy requiring language or locale choice.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 83% confidence
Finding: Lines L336-L345 describe 'Portuguese language dominance' and advise the reader to 'Learn basic Portuguese phrases' and 'Hire a translator/lawyer' without offering alternatives or clarifying that language support may vary. This can be read as normalizing a fixed language requirement rather than presenting a user choice, which falls under the locale/language policy check.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: The description frames the neighborhood as the epicenter of the 'new Lisbon' expat experience, and similar audience-specific framing continues throughout the document. Because the file presents recommendations in a way that presumes a particular social/locale perspective rather than offering neutral or user-selected framing, it may conflict with language/locale choice expectations.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 79% confidence
Finding: The document instructs users to 'Begin Portuguese basics' as part of the first-week checklist, which reads as a normative requirement rather than an optional recommendation. Under the language/locale policy, skills should not force a specific language without user opt-in unless clearly justified.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 82% confidence
Finding: The checklist item 'Start Portuguese classes' is written as a task the user should complete, not as an optional suggestion. Because the file does not offer a language preference choice or explain that Portuguese study is optional, this can be read as forcing a specific language.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 75% confidence
Finding: This section strongly promotes Portuguese and includes the statement 'Necessary for some services,' which may be interpreted as directing users toward a mandatory language choice. The policy allows locale constraints only when clearly documented and justified; here, the text does not explicitly frame this as contextual guidance rather than a requirement.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: The advice 'Learn Portuguese — Even basics transform experience' is presented as top-priority guidance and may be construed as prescribing a specific language. Skills should avoid language-forcing phrasing unless the locale constraint is clearly justified or the user is given a choice.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: The file highlights a 'Tourist Police Station' where 'English [is] spoken' and hospitals 'with English' as the preferred options. Because the document does not frame this as optional or provide a broader language-choice context, it can be read as privileging English by default.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.