Security audit

discussion-logic-diagnosis

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill is a Markdown-only academic review aid that diagnoses argument logic and does not request execution, credentials, persistence, or data-moving authority.

Installers should expect an academic logic-diagnosis skill, not a writing generator. Be aware that broad triggers like “check logic” may invoke it outside psychology Discussion contexts, and the supporting examples may make responses bilingual unless the user asks for a specific language.

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 (10)

Vague Triggers

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 92% confidence
Finding: The trigger phrase "is my reasoning sound" is broad, conversational language that can appear in many contexts outside the intended domain of psychology research-paper Discussion sections. This can cause unintended activation, exposing users to the wrong skill behavior and increasing the chance of context confusion or misrouting, though it does not by itself enable code execution or data exfiltration.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 90% confidence
Finding: The Chinese trigger phrases "Discussion 逻辑" and especially the short phrase "causal claim check" lack strong scoping to the declared use case and may match generic editing, debate, or academic-support requests outside this skill's intended boundary. Overbroad activation can lead to accidental invocation and inappropriate analysis in unrelated contexts, which is a quality and routing security concern.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The file's instructional content and usage guidance are written in Chinese, which effectively imposes a language requirement on users or operators. There is no indication that the skill offers language opt-in/out or that the locale restriction is intentional and justified for a region-specific purpose.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 93% confidence
Finding: The file’s headings, analysis, and usage guidance are predominantly written in Chinese, with no indication that users may choose another language or that the locale restriction is required for a specific regional context. Under the policy, forcing a specific language without opt-in is a natural-language policy violation.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 88% confidence
Finding: This markdown content presents the skill guidance exclusively in Chinese, including metadata, analysis, and usage instructions. Under the policy rule, forcing a specific language without user opt-in can be a natural-language policy violation unless the locale restriction is explicitly justified, which is not stated here.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Medium

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 84% confidence
Finding: This rubric is largely written in Chinese and presents its instructions and scoring criteria in that language, while also mixing in English terminology. There is no indication that users may choose another language or that the Chinese-language requirement is a documented, region-specific constraint, which can conflict with language/locale policy requirements.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 78% confidence
Finding: The file title and usage instructions are presented in Chinese with embedded English terminology, implying a fixed bilingual format. Under the policy, language constraints should either offer user choice or be clearly justified as region-specific; this file does neither.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 84% confidence
Finding: This markdown file contains substantial Chinese-language instructional content and bilingual headings/examples, but does not state that the skill is intended only for Chinese-speaking users or that language can be selected. Under the policy rule, forcing a language or locale without user opt-in can be a natural-language policy violation.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Vague Triggers

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 89% confidence
Finding: This markdown file includes usage triggers such as '用户只给一个解释' and '用户用 confident mechanism 语言' without clear boundaries, exclusions, or negative examples. Those conditions are broad enough that the example could be applied to many ordinary discussion-review situations, making invocation scope ambiguous.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Natural-Language Policy Violations

Low

Category: Not specified by scanner
Confidence: 90% confidence
Finding: SQP-3 applies to all file types and covers language or locale policy violations. This markdown file is written primarily in Chinese with substantial English terminology and examples, but it does not state that the user opted into bilingual content or that the skill is intentionally region- or audience-specific.
Content: No source excerpt is available for this finding.