Security Scan

Security review workflow for OpenClaw skills and other small code folders. Use when auditing a skill before publishing or installing it, checking for dangerous code patterns, possible hardcoded secrets, risky file permissions, or lightweight supply-chain concerns. Best for quick static review and cautious go/no-go recommendations, not full malware analysis or sandbox forensics.

Perform a lightweight security review before trusting, publishing, or installing a skill.

What this skill does

Use this skill to:

• inspect a skill directory for obviously dangerous code patterns
• look for likely hardcoded credentials or tokens
• flag risky file permissions
• produce a concise risk summary with recommended next steps

This skill is intentionally conservative and lightweight. Treat findings as review signals, not proof of compromise.

What this skill does not do

Do not claim capabilities that are not present in the bundled resources.

This skill does not provide:

• true sandbox execution
• system call tracing
• network traffic capture
• dependency CVE resolution from external databases
• automatic approval or rejection logic

If deeper reverse engineering or threat analysis is needed, do a manual review and use stronger external tooling.

Bundled resource

scripts/scan.sh

Run the included shell scanner for a quick static pass:

bash

bash scripts/scan.sh /path/to/target

The script currently checks for:

• suspicious function names such as eval(, exec(, system(, and spawn(
• simple hardcoded-secret patterns
• world-writable files

Because the script uses grep-style heuristics, expect both false positives and false negatives.

Recommended workflow

1. Scope the review

Confirm what you are reviewing:

• target directory
• whether it is a skill, script bundle, or general code folder
• whether the goal is publish review, install review, or a quick sanity check

2. Run the quick scan

From the skill directory:

bash

bash scripts/scan.sh /path/to/target

If the target is the current directory:

bash

bash scripts/scan.sh .

3. Review the findings manually

Do not stop at raw matches. Inspect the surrounding code and decide whether each finding is:

• expected and justified
• suspicious but explainable
• high-risk and likely unacceptable

Pay special attention to:

• shell execution that touches untrusted input
• outbound network access
• credential handling
• writes outside the working directory
• self-modifying or persistence-oriented behavior

4. Give a practical verdict

Summarize the result in plain language using a simple rubric:

• Low risk: no meaningful issues found in this lightweight review
• Needs review: suspicious patterns or ambiguous findings require manual inspection before trust
• High risk: clear dangerous behavior, likely secrets, or unjustified execution patterns

5. Recommend next actions

Examples:

• publish/install as-is
• publish/install only after removing a flagged pattern
• rotate exposed credentials
• request source clarification from the author
• escalate to deeper manual or sandboxed analysis

Reporting pattern

Use a compact structure like this:

text

Security scan summary
- Target: <path>
- Result: Low risk | Needs review | High risk
- Findings:
  - <finding 1>
  - <finding 2>
- Confidence: Low | Medium | High
- Recommended action: <next step>

Triage guidance

Usually high risk

• obvious credential material checked into the repo
• hidden or unjustified command execution
• code that downloads and runs remote content
• writes to sensitive locations without a clear reason

Usually medium risk

• use of shell execution with unclear input handling
• overly broad file permissions
• suspicious obfuscation or encoded payloads
• installer/update logic that is hard to verify quickly

Usually low risk

• benign matches in docs or examples
• helper scripts that use shell commands in a narrow, understandable way
• false positives from regex scanning

Practical cautions

• Prefer a short, evidence-based verdict over dramatic claims.
• Quote the matched lines or file paths when useful.
• If confidence is low, say so explicitly.
• Do not claim the scan is comprehensive.
• For publish decisions, err on the side of requiring cleanup when the skill still contains templates, TODOs, placeholder claims, or unverified commands.