Security audit
Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk
This is a documentation-only frontend form-validation skill with no executable code, persistence, credential handling, or hidden authority.
Install this if you want Chinese-oriented guidance for building accessible frontend forms and validation flows. Be aware that its trigger terms are broad, so it may be invoked for general form or submission discussions where more specific guidance might not be needed.
The activation criteria are broad enough to trigger on many ordinary conversations about forms, validation, or submission, which can cause the skill to activate outside the user's intended scope. Over-broad activation increases the chance of irrelevant guidance, context hijacking, or unintended influence on responses, especially in multi-skill environments.
The description says to use the skill when terms like “表单”, “提交”, or “错误提示” appear, but these are very generic words that can occur in many ordinary UI or product discussions. The file does not provide exclusion conditions or tighter scope boundaries, so the activation criteria may cause unintended invocation.
The trigger section lists broad user phrases and general needs, but it does not clearly distinguish between cases that should activate this skill and nearby topics that should not. Without explicit scope limits or negative examples, references to multi-field flows, async checks, or submission issues could match a wide range of non-form-specific requests.
The manifest description says the skill is suitable for broad scenarios such as "表单、校验、提交...等场景" without defining specific invocation phrases, boundaries, or exclusion conditions. In a manifest file, this kind of open-ended scope can lead to unintended activation for common development requests related to forms or submission.
The file presents the title and usage guidance primarily in Chinese, with some English terminology embedded, but does not state that the user can choose their preferred language. Under the language/locale policy, content that implicitly forces a language without opt-in can be a policy concern unless justified or documented.
The skill name, tagline, and description are written entirely in Chinese, with no indication that users may choose another language or locale. This may constitute a language policy issue if the skill is presented to a broader audience without documenting that the locale is intentional or optional.
No suspicious patterns detected.
