Security audit

Singapore

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This is a content-only Singapore guide with no code or persistence, though some advice should be read critically for bias or missing safety caveats.

Installers should treat this as a Singapore reference guide, not authoritative legal, immigration, employment, medical, or safety advice. Verify visa, border, business-registration, healthcare, and price information with official sources, and avoid relying on nationality-based generalizations when making hiring or housing decisions.

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

Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
Trigger AbuseOverly Broad Trigger, Shadow Command Trigger, Keyword Baiting Trigger
Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
Supply ChainUnpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code

Findings (22)

Vague Triggers

Medium

Confidence: 93% confidence
Finding: The phrase "User asks about Singapore for any purpose" is extremely broad and lacks explicit constraints or exclusion conditions. Without narrower trigger examples or negative examples, the skill could activate for casual mentions of Singapore that do not actually require this guidance skill.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Confidence: 76% confidence
Finding: The section heading calls Singlish the "Unofficial National Language" and states that it is what Singaporeans "actually speak in daily life," which can push a specific language variety as the default. Under the policy, language or locale guidance should avoid forcing a specific language choice without user opt-in or clear justification.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Confidence: 91% confidence
Finding: The section assigns generalized traits and pay expectations to domestic helpers based on nationality, such as language ability or suitability for certain care roles. Even in a lifestyle guide, this can reinforce discriminatory stereotypes and lead users to make biased employment decisions based on protected or sensitive group characteristics rather than individual qualifications.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: The 'Common Challenges' content includes language that links likely communication issues to particular national groups, which normalizes stereotyping in an employment context. Because the skill is giving practical guidance to prospective employers, these claims can directly influence discriminatory treatment or screening decisions.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The section explicitly says Holland Village is ideal for 'Western expats,' which favors a specific demographic in a recommendation context without a clear necessity. In a housing and neighborhood guide, this can reinforce exclusionary norms or make non-Western users feel the area is not intended for them, creating fairness and bias concerns even if the author likely intended to describe current demographics rather than exclude others.

Missing User Warnings

Medium

Confidence: 93% confidence
Finding: The file acknowledges Singapore's heat and suggests timing outdoor activities, but it does not provide explicit health warnings about dehydration, heat exhaustion, UV exposure, or suitability limits for children, elderly travelers, and people with medical conditions. In a travel-planning skill, users may reasonably treat the itinerary as practical guidance, so omission of basic safety guardrails can contribute to preventable harm.

Missing User Warnings

Medium

Confidence: 94% confidence
Finding: The cross-border day-trip guidance mentions passports and general timing, but it omits important contingency and eligibility warnings such as nationality-specific entry requirements, visa rules, re-entry conditions for Singapore, border delays, transport disruption, and the need to verify official immigration guidance before travel. In a visitor itinerary context, incomplete border advice can strand travelers, cause denied entry, or lead to missed flights and financial loss.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 84% confidence
Finding: The line states that English is the primary business language, which can steer responses toward a specific language without explicitly offering the user a language or locale choice. Under the stated policy, language constraints should be opt-in or clearly justified as region-specific output requirements.

Missing User Warnings

Low

Confidence: 83% confidence
Finding: This markdown file instructs users to prepare and upload sensitive personal data such as passport details, addresses, and consent letters. The description does not warn users that these documents contain sensitive information and should only be submitted through official portals and handled carefully.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: Line L013 states a bilingual policy specifically as 'English + Mother Tongue,' and later sections reinforce English as the primary/default medium without offering any language-choice framing. While descriptive, the document normalizes a specific language expectation rather than explicitly preserving user language or locale choice.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: Line L158 lists 'English as primary language' as an advantage, which promotes a specific language preference in natural language. Because SQP-3 applies to all file types and flags language/locale policy violations, this should be framed more neutrally or as context-dependent rather than universally preferable.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 89% confidence
Finding: The phrase "Less English spoken — point and smile works" embeds a language-specific assumption in the guidance rather than offering alternatives or a choice of language support. The policy for this audit flags language or locale constraints when they are presented without user opt-in or clear justification.

Missing User Warnings

Low

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: This markdown file contains extensive recommendations for rooftop bars, cocktail bars, speakeasies, and drinking tips, but provides no cautionary note about responsible alcohol consumption or age/legal considerations. Because the content directly guides alcohol-related activities that can affect user safety, a brief warning would improve safe use.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: This markdown file is entirely written in English and does not indicate that users may choose another language or locale. Under the stated policy, forcing a specific language without user opt-in can be a natural-language policy violation.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 94% confidence
Finding: The document is explicitly scoped to Singapore local cuisine and presents recommendations only for that locale without offering any user choice or opt-in. Under the stated policy, locale-specific guidance can be a natural-language policy issue when the file imposes a specific locale without documenting user selection or a clear justification.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 90% confidence
Finding: The phrase "English everywhere" is presented as a benefit for the target persona, which implicitly centers English as the expected user language. The document does not offer any language or locale choice or clarify that this is merely an environmental observation rather than a language requirement.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 86% confidence
Finding: Line L202 states 'English everywhere,' which frames the neighborhood as broadly usable through a single language and can reinforce an English-default expectation. Because SQP-3 covers language or locale policy violations in natural language, this should be softened unless the content explicitly offers language context rather than implying a preferred language norm.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: Line L243 says 'English spoken everywhere,' which is a blanket language claim and may be interpreted as privileging one language as the expected default. Under SQP-3, language-related guidance should avoid forcing or implying a single-language norm unless clearly justified.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 82% confidence
Finding: The 'Who Should Live Here' section describes the area as ideal for 'Singaporean families or those wanting similar lifestyle' and 'not ideal' for people wanting an 'expat-heavy environment.' This reflects a locale/cultural preference in natural language without offering user choice or neutral framing, which can conflict with policy against imposing a specific locale or cultural orientation by default.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 80% confidence
Finding: The statement "English-speaking: Primary business language" imposes a language framing in natural language content without any opt-in or acknowledgement of multilingual alternatives. Under the policy rule, language or locale constraints should either be optional or clearly justified as region-specific.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 77% confidence
Finding: The guide states that prices are given in SGD and the entire document is framed around Singapore-specific lodging guidance, but it does not explicitly signal that this locale constraint is intentional or offer accommodation for users who may prefer another currency or locale format. Under the policy rule, locale constraints should either be user-selectable or clearly justified as region-specific.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: Line L506 states 'Not really needed - everyone speaks English!', which frames English as the default and downplays the need for other language options. Under the policy rule for language/locale, this is a mild natural-language issue because it does not offer user choice and may marginalize non-English-speaking users.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.