Back to skill

Security audit

Taku Plan

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

The skill is mostly a planning workflow, but it can move from planning into implementation without a clear user approval step.

Review this skill carefully before installing. It is reasonable for a planning skill to read DESIGN.md and write PLAN.md, but this one should ideally stop after saving the plan and ask before starting implementation or invoking /taku-build.

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 (1)

T01 · Skill Instruction Hijacking

Error
Location
SKILL.md:239
Finding

Automatic Redirection from Planning to Repository Implementation

Content
View full analysis
**For agentic workers:** Use `/taku-build` to implement this plan. The build agent should choose sequential, parallel, or hybrid execution unless the user explicitly overrides it. ``` `SKILL.md:239-248`: ```markdown "Plan saved to `PLAN.md`. If the plan is self-reviewed and within the approved scope, continue directly to BUILD. At BUILD start, choose the execution mode yourself: sequential, parallel, or hybrid wave-based execution. Announce a short BUILD PREFLIGHT that includes: - chosen mode - one-line reason - execution waves when applicable, with `wave-slug: [task-slug, ...]` Only stop before BUILD if the plan changed scope materially, introduced a costly or risky action, or left a key ambiguity unresolved." ``` `references/plan.md:6-8`: ```markdown > **For agentic workers:** Use `/taku-build` to implement this plan. The build > agent chooses sequential, parallel, or hybrid execution unless the user > explicitly overrides it. ``` ### Technical Analysis The skill is presented as a design-review and implementation-planning facility. Its expected output is review material in `DESIGN.md` and an execution plan in `PLAN.md`. The cited instructions expand that purpose by directing an agent to proceed automatically from planning into BUILD. This is instruction hijacking because loading the skill changes the active objective from reviewing or documenting a proposed change to modifying the project. The instruction at `SKILL.md:239-248` makes stopping exceptional rather than requiring affirmative authorization for implementation. The plan scaffold creates an additional propagation channel. Plans produced from `references/plan.md` contain an imperative instruction addressed to “agentic workers.” A later agent that read ...[truncated 1939 chars]
Remediation
View remediation
Vulnerability Patterns
  • Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
  • 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
Findings (13)

Vague Triggers

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The trigger list contains broad phrases such as "plan this," "review this plan," and "what could go wrong," which can match common user requests outside the intended narrow context. That increases the chance of accidental activation, causing the skill to run file-reading and file-writing workflow steps when the user may have only wanted general advice.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Missing User Warnings

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
92% confidence
Finding

The skill instructs appending review artifacts to DESIGN.md without an upfront warning or explicit confirmation that repository files will be modified. In an agent setting, silent document mutation can alter source-of-truth design artifacts unexpectedly, overwrite user intent, or create misleading review records that downstream automation trusts.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Missing User Warnings

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The skill directs saving output to PLAN.md at the project root without a clear upfront notice that a repository file will be created or modified. This can lead to unapproved writes, accidental overwrites, and downstream execution against a generated plan that the user did not explicitly authorize.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
96% confidence
Finding

The manifest description says the skill triggers on phrases including "does this look good," which is common conversational language and not specific enough to design-review contexts. This creates a risk of unintended invocation when a user is asking for general feedback rather than requesting this specialized scoring workflow.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Autonomous Decision Making

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
75% confidence
Finding

Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.

Content

Scanner excerpt · references/design-review.md (reported line 125)May include surrounding context.

OVERALL: N/10

text

For dimensions scoring 8+, a brief note is fine. For dimensions below 8, the fix must be specific enough for the implementer to act on without asking questions.

**Why the 8+ threshold:** Scoring 8+ means the dimension is solid enough that only minor polish could improve it. Below 8 means there's a meaningful gap that will be visible to users. The fix must be specific because vague guidance ("improve the spacing") produces vague implementation.

Autonomous Decision Making

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
75% confidence
Finding

Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.

Content

Scanner excerpt · references/design-review.md (reported line 135)May include surrounding context.

OVERALL: N/10

text

For dimensions scoring 8+, a brief note is fine. For dimensions below 8, the fix must be specific enough for the implementer to act on without asking questions.

**Why the 8+ threshold:** Scoring 8+ means the dimension is solid enough that only minor polish could improve it. Below 8 means there's a meaningful gap that will be visible to users. The fix must be specific because vague guidance ("improve the spacing") produces vague implementation.

Description-Behavior Mismatch

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
92% confidence
Finding

The skill goes beyond passive scoring by instructing the agent to append a new section to DESIGN.md and to propagate fixes into project planning artifacts. That expands the skill from review into modification, increasing the chance of unintended or unauthorized edits to source-of-truth documents during what should be an evaluative step.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The instructions are internally inconsistent: they say not to place output in PLAN.md while also saying fixes are written into the plan. Ambiguity in destination documents can cause the agent to update the wrong file or duplicate changes across artifacts, undermining review integrity and enabling accidental workflow corruption.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Description-Behavior Mismatch

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The provided skill file defines only a plan review workflow with two modes: scope review and architecture review. It does not implement the manifest context's broader 'turn an approved design into an executable implementation plan' pipeline, including UI-only design review, auto-detection of project state, or plan writing, so the described capability does not match this file's actual documented operations.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
93% confidence
Finding

The trigger phrases are broad and overlap with normal conversation, which can cause the skill to activate unexpectedly and perform analysis or file-modification steps the user did not explicitly request. In this skill's context, unintended invocation is more dangerous because the workflow later instructs appending content to DESIGN.md, turning ambiguous activation into unintended repository changes.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Missing User Warnings

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The skill directs appending review output to DESIGN.md without clearly warning the user that repository files will be modified. This is dangerous because users may expect advisory analysis only, while the skill silently turns a review action into a state-changing write, which can pollute source-controlled documents or overwrite intended workflow boundaries.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Missing User Warnings

Medium
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding

The completion section again instructs modifying DESIGN.md without a clear repository-change warning or confirmation step. Repeating this behavior at completion increases the likelihood of silent state changes, especially if the skill was auto-invoked from broad triggers or used in a read-only review context.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Intent-Code Divergence

Low
Category
Not specified by scanner
Confidence
78% confidence
Finding

Early documentation states the default is to run both scope and architecture review in sequence, suggesting architecture review is part of the standard flow. Later, the 'Known Pitfalls' section instructs using depth-tiering so lightweight changes can skip full architecture review, which contradicts the earlier default behavior rather than merely adding detail.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.