T09 · Insecure Skill Coding Practices
- Location
references/map_mcp_guide.md:43- Finding
Map MCP Workflow Discloses Business Search Terms Contrary to Its Data-Minimization Guarantee
- Content
View full analysis
- Remediation
View remediation
Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This appears to be a real restaurant site-selection tool, but it needs review because its map-service privacy promise conflicts with its competitor-search workflow.
Install only if you are comfortable with map queries potentially revealing the target location together with category or competitor search terms. Use trusted JSON/map data, review generated reports before sharing, and avoid rendering reports in systems that allow raw HTML or unsafe link schemes.
references/map_mcp_guide.md:43Map MCP Workflow Discloses Business Search Terms Contrary to Its Data-Minimization Guarantee
scripts/report_generator.py:127Untrusted JSON Values Are Embedded into Generated Markdown Without Escaping or URL Validation
Referenced artifact was not completely inspected
- **发布前替换作者**:`SKILL.md` 的 `author` 字段当前为 `WorkBuddy`,对外发布前请改为你的品牌。
Forcing Chinese-language output without user choice can create consent and usability issues, especially if the user operates in another language and may misunderstand risk disclosures, data-sharing notices, or decision outputs. In a skill that discusses opt-in for map MCP and business decisions, clarity of user-facing notices matters, so fixed-language behavior increases the chance of uninformed consent or misuse.
The trigger list is broad enough to activate on common business terms like 选址, 人流量, and 品类选择, which can cause unintended invocation in unrelated conversations. In this skill, accidental activation is more sensitive because the workflow may progress toward external map MCP usage and disclosure of location data, even if later consent gates are described.
The skill advertises executable script workflows and references local file inputs/outputs, but it does not declare any explicit tool scope such as allowed-tools or permissions. That creates a governance gap: a host agent may grant broader file read/write capability than the skill actually needs, increasing the risk of unintended file access or report output to unsafe locations. In this context the skill is not overtly trying to exfiltrate data, and it includes privacy-minded language, which lowers suspicion of malice but does not remove the least-privilege problem.
The trigger list contains broad, common terms such as '地图', '人流量', and '投资回报', which can cause the skill to activate in conversations that are only loosely related. Over-broad auto-activation is dangerous because this skill can lead into collection of sensitive location data and file-backed analysis flows, so accidental invocation increases the chance of unintended data handling or confusing tool use. The skill does contain opt-in language for map data egress, which reduces worst-case impact, but the trigger breadth still expands the attack surface.
The skill states that it produces a professional Markdown report, and throughout the document all prescribed output content is fixed in Chinese without offering the user a language choice. This can violate language/locale policy when a skill implicitly forces one language instead of asking or allowing opt-in.
The dialogue guidance says that hitting certain keywords '即触发' and that the AI will automatically run the workflow, which encourages activation without sufficient scope validation. That is risky because the workflow may progress toward external map-service use and structured business analysis before the agent confirms the user's exact intent, data sensitivity, and consent boundaries. The surrounding skill text includes some consent safeguards for map MCP, so the issue is more about unsafe triggering and workflow initiation than direct malicious behavior.
This file contains natural-language descriptions and user-facing output that are fixed to Chinese, including the module docstring and result labels. Under the policy, forcing a specific language without user opt-in is a locale/language policy violation unless the regional constraint is explicitly documented and justified.
This code file contains natural-language strings that present the skill entirely in Chinese, including the module docstring and later user-facing CLI text, with no indication that language is configurable or limited to a China-specific deployment. Under the language/locale policy, forcing a specific language without user opt-in is a policy violation.
This code file contains natural-language documentation entirely in Chinese and presents the CLI usage/help context in Chinese, with no indication that the user can select another language. Under the policy rule for language/locale, forcing a specific language without opt-in is a violation unless the locale restriction is explicitly justified.
The generated report and status messages are hard-coded primarily in Chinese, and the program provides no runtime option for users to choose another language. This is a natural-language policy issue because the skill enforces one locale rather than offering user choice or documenting a justified regional limitation.
This markdown file contains user-facing instructions and recommendations exclusively in Chinese, and there is no indication that the skill is region-specific or that users can opt into this language. Under the language/locale policy, forcing a specific language without user choice can be a policy violation.
This JSON contains user-facing categorical values and entity names in Chinese, such as "商圈型", "餐饮", and competitor names, with no indication that the skill offers a language or locale choice. The policy requires flagging language or locale constraints when they are forced without user opt-in or explicit justification.
Line L111 states '输出强制使用', which is a natural-language requirement forcing a specific output style/terminology. Under the policy rules, forcing a language/locale-related output constraint without offering user choice can be a policy violation.
The file contains user-facing operational guidance exclusively in Chinese, and there is no indication that users may choose another language or that the Chinese-only constraint is required for a region-specific purpose. Under the policy rule, forcing a specific language without opt-in is a natural-language policy concern.