Security audit

job-analysis-study

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This is a static Chinese job-analysis study guide with reference notes and no executable or persistent behavior.

Install this if you want a Chinese-language study assistant for job analysis Chapter 9. If you prefer English or another language, tell the assistant your language preference when using the skill.

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
Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
Supply ChainUnpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code
Excessive AgencyUnrestricted Tool Access, Autonomous Decision Making, Scope Creep

Findings (5)

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The skill explicitly instructs the assistant to answer primarily in Chinese, which can override or conflict with the user's language preference if the platform does not enforce user-language priority. This is not a classic security exploit, but it is a policy/quality vulnerability because it can degrade user control, reduce comprehension, and create unsafe misunderstandings when users expect another language.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 91% confidence
Finding: This markdown file contains substantial bilingual content such as Chinese headings and prose interleaved with English terminology, but it does not indicate that users can choose their preferred language or that the mixed-language format is required for a specific audience. Under the policy rule, forcing a language or locale without opt-in can be a natural-language policy violation.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 86% confidence
Finding: This markdown file contains instructional content presented in a mixed Chinese-English style across the entire document. Under the policy for natural-language violations, forcing a specific language or locale without offering user choice can be a concern, and the file does not indicate that the mixed-language format is optional or region-specific.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 83% confidence
Finding: This markdown file is primarily written in Chinese and includes untranslated English terms such as 'Doing a Job Analysis Study', 'Functional questions', and other English technical vocabulary. Because the skill does not indicate that the user opted into this language mix or that the content is intentionally limited to a Chinese-reading audience, it may violate the language/locale policy requiring user choice or justified locale constraints.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 78% confidence
Finding: This reference largely presents content in Chinese, but many key labels and terminology remain in English throughout the file. That can amount to an implicit language/locale constraint or mixed-language requirement without any opt-in or explanation for the reader.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.