Security audit

Operator Humanizer

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

The skill is mostly a local writing guide and analyzer, but it needs Review because it broadly encourages detector-evasive humanization, specific-person voice imitation, and hidden Unicode spacing in examples.

Review this skill before installing if you work in settings where authorship, consent, or disclosure matters. Do not use it to impersonate real people or evade policies, treat its AI-detection claims as rough style heuristics, and inspect generated output for hidden Unicode characters before publishing.

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

Findings (2)

other

Note

Location: references/examples.md:130
Finding: Invisible Unicode Separators Embedded in Social Media Output Template
Content: View full analysis
Remediation: View remediation

other

Note

Location: references/personality-injection.md:480
Finding: Invisible Unicode Separators Propagated Through Personality-Injection Guidance
Content: View full analysis
Remediation: View remediation

SkillSpector

Vulnerability Patterns

Excessive AgencyUnrestricted Tool Access, Autonomous Decision Making, Scope Creep
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

Findings (4)

Tp4

High

Category: MCP Tool Poisoning
Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The description promises a substantial text-humanization capability: detecting a broad range of AI tells and actively converting text into authentic human writing. The code instead provides a command-line analyzer with three functions: score, analyze, and suggest. It computes simple stylometric metrics (burstiness, TTR, sentence CoV), checks against a few hardcoded word/phrase lists, and prints scores plus generic revision suggestions. That aligns partially with the 'checking for AI tells' portion of the description, but the primary claimed behavior—actually transforming text and injecting human personality/style—is absent. The implemented detection scope is also materially narrower than advertised. There are no suspicious undeclared permissions or resource accesses beyond reading local files, but the core purpose and capabilities are overstated relative to the code.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

High

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 96% confidence
Finding: The skill explicitly supports making text sound like a specific person, but includes no authorization, consent, or safety constraints. That can enable impersonation, fraud, social engineering, reputational harm, or bypass of authenticity checks by producing messages that mimic identifiable individuals.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 96% confidence
Finding: The skill advertises extremely broad use cases for rewriting and humanizing text, which can cause it to trigger on ordinary writing requests without meaningful user intent checks. That makes it easier to apply the skill to deceptive content, evasion of AI-detection policies, or other misuse scenarios in contexts where provenance matters.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 91% confidence
Finding: The file prescribes blanket bans on many ordinary words and treats normal vocabulary as evidence of AI authorship, despite no reliable basis for that inference. In a skill designed to 'humanize' text, this can push users toward deceptive stylistic manipulation, false positives in authorship judgments, and distorted writing guidance that suppresses legitimate expression.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.