| name | skill-security-auditor |
| description | Audit an AI agent skill before installing it. Use proactively whenever the user is about to add, install, enable, or evaluate an unfamiliar skill — including phrases like "audit this skill", "is this skill safe", "scan skill before install", "check skill for malicious code", "review this plugin", or any pre-install gate on an untrusted, third-party, or community-distributed skill bundle. Runs ten categories of static checks (code execution, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, persistence, prompt injection, supply-chain hooks, obfuscation, destructive filesystem ops, secrets, Trojan Source / homoglyphs) and emits a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict. |
| metadata | {"author":"Dr. Antoine Louis","license":"agpl-3.0","version":"2026-05-12"} |
Skill Security Auditor
Static analysis for AI agent skills. Run it on any skill from outside your own
trust boundary before letting an agent execute its scripts. The auditor walks
the entire skill directory and emits findings across ten threat categories,
then collapses them into a single verdict that CI can gate on.
This skill is paranoid by design. It assumes a skill author may be trying
to compromise the host system, exfiltrate credentials, persist beyond the
session, or inject hostile instructions into the model. Most skills will
trip a couple of LOW or MEDIUM findings — that's expected. The signal worth
acting on is CRITICAL and HIGH.
When to use
Trigger this skill when the user:
- Is about to install a third-party skill, plugin, or agent extension.
- Asks "is this skill safe?", "audit it", "scan it", "is there anything sketchy
in here?", or similar pre-install review questions.
- Wants a security gate on a skill marketplace, internal skill registry, or
CI pipeline that ingests user-submitted skills.
- Just cloned a skill repo and wants a one-shot review before running it.
Do not use this skill when the user is auditing their own first-party
code — there are better static-analysis tools (Semgrep, Bandit, CodeQL) for
that. This skill specializes in the specific attack surface of AI agent
skills: SKILL.md prompt injection, malicious tool helpers, supply-chain
hooks in dependency manifests, and persistence mechanisms that survive the
agent session.
Quick start
python3 scripts/audit.py /path/to/skill
python3 scripts/audit.py https://github.com/example/some-skill.git --cleanup
python3 scripts/audit.py ./skill --strict
python3 scripts/audit.py ./skill --json --output report.json
python3 scripts/audit.py ./skill --markdown --output review.md
python3 scripts/audit.py ./repo --skill skills/my-skill
Exit codes: 0 PASS · 1 FAIL · 2 WARN · 3 usage/IO error.
What gets scanned
Every file under the skill root is classified and routed to the appropriate
scanner. The categories below summarize what each scanner looks for;
references/threat-model.md covers the why in depth.
| Category | Severity span | Examples |
|---|
| Code execution | HIGH–CRITICAL | eval, exec, os.system, subprocess(shell=True), dynamic getattr |
| Network exfil | MEDIUM–CRITICAL | hardcoded IPs, webhook sinks (webhook.site, ngrok, interact.sh), requests.post to runtime URLs |
| Credential harvest | HIGH–CRITICAL | reads from ~/.ssh, ~/.aws, ~/.gnupg, sensitive env vars, browser cookie DBs |
| Persistence | HIGH–CRITICAL | cron, systemd, launchctl, shell rc files, git hooks, authorized_keys, registry Run keys |
| Prompt injection | MEDIUM–CRITICAL | "ignore previous instructions", role markers, <|im_start|>system, hidden HTML comments |
| Supply chain | MEDIUM–CRITICAL | unpinned deps, typosquats (Levenshtein 1–2 from popular packages), npm postinstall hooks |
| Obfuscation | MEDIUM–HIGH | base64-decoded code, chr(...) chains, hex-escape blobs, Bidi / Trojan Source |
| Filesystem | LOW–CRITICAL | binaries, symlinks escaping the skill, SUID bits, writes to /etc, rm -rf patterns |
| Secrets | HIGH–CRITICAL | AWS keys, GitHub tokens, OpenAI/Anthropic keys, private key headers, JWTs |
| CI workflow | HIGH–CRITICAL | unescaped ${{ github.event.* }} in run:, pull_request_target with checkout |
The scanners run in this order: structure → filesystem → supply-chain →
workflows → prompts → code. A malformed skill surfaces the structural issue
first instead of drowning the reviewer in cascade findings.
Verdict criteria
The verdict is a three-state collapse of the findings:
- PASS — no CRITICAL, no HIGH, fewer than 5 MEDIUM. LOW findings are
informational and do not affect the verdict.
- WARN — at least one HIGH (in default mode), or 5+ MEDIUM. Means: a
human should look at this before installing, but nothing is definitely
malicious.
- FAIL — at least one CRITICAL, or any HIGH in
--strict mode.
Means: do not install. Either there's a clear malicious pattern, or
there's something that needs explanation from the skill author before
it can be trusted.
For automated gates, run with --strict. The default (non-strict) mode is
for interactive review where a human is in the loop.
Reading a finding
Each finding has the same shape:
🔴 CRITICAL (3 findings)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
scripts/install.py
scripts/install.py:42 [CODE-EXEC]
│ os.system(base64.b64decode(payload).decode())
Risk: Decodes and executes a base64-encoded payload at runtime
Fix: Remove. Skills must not execute arbitrary decoded strings.
- The category tag (
CODE-EXEC) is stable across runs — use it to
build baseline rules or filter in CI.
- The snippet is the trimmed source line (max 140 chars). Long lines
are truncated with
....
- The risk and fix fields are one sentence each, deliberately short
so a reviewer can triage 20 findings in under a minute.
Suppression
Two suppression mechanisms exist, intentionally orthogonal:
1. Line-level (# noqa: SEC-AUDITOR) — when a legitimate skill genuinely
needs a flagged pattern. Add the marker as a trailing comment on the line:
import pickle
Equivalent markers auditor:ignore-line and audit-skip also work. Lines
with any of these markers are skipped during scanning.
2. Baseline file (fingerprint suppression) — for accepting findings
without modifying source. Each finding has a stable 16-char fingerprint
derived from sha256(file + snippet + pattern + category) — line numbers
don't matter, so the fingerprint survives reformatting and reordering.
Get fingerprints from a JSON run:
python3 scripts/audit.py ./skill --json | jq '.findings[] | {fingerprint, category, file}'
Then commit a baseline.yml:
suppressions:
- fingerprint: a1b2c3d4e5f60718
reason: reviewed 2025-04-30, internal HTTP call to corporate API
- fingerprint: 0123456789abcdef
reason: false positive in vendored library, see ticket SEC-441
And run with --baseline baseline.yml. See assets/baseline.example.yml
for the full schema.
CI integration
GitHub Actions, gated on CRITICAL findings, opening a PR comment on WARN:
name: Skill security audit
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
audit:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- uses: actions/setup-python@v5
with: { python-version: '3.11' }
- name: Clone auditor
run: git clone https://github.com/your-org/skill-security-auditor.git /tmp/auditor
- name: Run audit
id: audit
run: |
python3 /tmp/auditor/scripts/audit.py . \
--strict \
--markdown \
--output audit-report.md
continue-on-error: true
- name: Post review comment
if: always()
uses: actions/github-script@v7
with:
script: |
const fs = require('fs');
const body = fs.readFileSync('audit-report.md', 'utf8');
github.rest.issues.createComment({
issue_number: context.issue.number,
owner: context.repo.owner,
repo: context.repo.repo,
body
});
For pre-commit, just call the auditor directly:
repos:
- repo: local
hooks:
- id: skill-audit
name: skill-security-auditor
entry: python3 scripts/audit.py
args: [--strict, --quiet]
language: system
pass_filenames: false
always_run: true
References
Detailed reading lives in the references/ directory:
references/threat-model.md — Full taxonomy of attacks a malicious
skill can mount, with concrete examples per category. Read this if you're
writing a new pattern or evaluating whether the auditor covers a given
attack scenario.
references/pattern-catalog.md — Complete list of every pattern the
auditor recognizes, grouped by category, with example malicious source
and the regex that catches it.
references/remediation-guide.md — How to fix each finding category.
Linked from the fix field when guidance doesn't fit in one line.
Limitations
Stated honestly because security tools that pretend to be exhaustive are
worse than ones that admit gaps:
- No taint tracking. The auditor sees
requests.post(url, data=secret)
and flags it, but it doesn't trace whether url came from a trusted
config. False positives are accepted as the cost of catching real
exfiltration.
- No dynamic analysis. A skill that downloads its payload at runtime
from a CDN with no suspicious-looking hardcoded URL won't be caught here.
Pair this with sandboxed execution and network monitoring.
- Pattern arms race. Obfuscation techniques evolve; a determined attacker
will find ways around any static check. CRITICAL findings are reliable;
HIGH and MEDIUM are pattern matches that benefit from human eyes.
- Python AST coverage only. JS/TS/shell get regex coverage but no AST
pass, so aliased-import attacks in those languages are weaker checks.
- No reputation data. This is a pure static analyzer — no calls to
package registries or threat-intel feeds. Combine with
pip-audit /
npm audit for known-CVE coverage.
Why this exists
Skills run with the agent's full execution capability. A compromised skill
can read your credentials, exfiltrate your data, persist on your system, or
inject hostile instructions into the model that survive across conversations.
Software that ingests untrusted code without static review is software that
gets owned. This skill is the static review.