---

name: skill-security-auditor description: "Audit a Claude/Agent SKILL.md (or any AI skill / system prompt) for safety before installing or merging it. Use when asked to review a skill for security, check a prompt for injection, vet a community skill, or assess whether an instruction file is safe to run. Produces a risk-rated report of findings (prompt injection, data exfiltration, code execution, secrets, hidden text) with severity, evidence, and a clear install / don't-install recommendation."

Skill Security Auditor

Review an AI skill file or system prompt for instructions that could harm whoever installs or runs it. Skills are plain text, but plain text can still tell a model to leak data, run destructive commands, or ignore its guidelines. This skill produces a structured safety verdict.

When to use

• Vetting a skill from an untrusted or community source before installing it
• Reviewing a contributed SKILL.md in a pull request
• Checking a system prompt / custom instruction for prompt-injection risks

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The skill / prompt content to audit (paste it, or the file path)
• Any bundled scripts the skill ships (these matter as much as the prose)
• Where it came from (source/author) and how it will run (auto-loaded vs. manual)

What to Check

Scan for each category and rate severity (🔴 High / 🟠 Medium / 🟡 Low):

Category	Look for
Prompt injection	"ignore previous/all instructions", "developer mode", jailbreak/DAN framing, attempts to reveal the system prompt, forced unrestricted personas
Data exfiltration	Instructions that transmit the conversation, user-provided content, credentials, or keys to an external URL/webhook/server
Code & command execution	eval/exec, os.system, subprocess, child_process, destructive shell (rm -rf /, dd, fork bombs, chmod 777)
Secrets	Hardcoded API keys, AWS keys (AKIA…), private keys, or asking the user to paste secrets
Obfuscation	Zero-width / invisible Unicode, very long base64 blobs that hide payloads
Scope creep	Instructions unrelated to the skill's stated purpose, or that try to broaden permissions

Process

1. Read the skill body and every bundled script — scripts are where real harm hides.
2. For each finding, capture: category, severity, the exact line/snippet (evidence), and why it's risky.
3. Decide an overall verdict: Safe to install, Install with caution (medium issues to review), or Do not install (any high-severity issue).
4. For a repo, recommend automation: run node scripts/skill-audit.mjs in CI to gate every PR.

Output Format

---

Skill Security Audit: [skill name / source]

Verdict: ✅ Safe to install / ⚠️ Install with caution / ⛔ Do not install Findings: [N] high · [N] medium · [N] low

Findings

Severity	Category	Evidence (line/snippet)	Why it's risky
🔴 High	[category]	[exact snippet]	[explanation]

Recommendation

[1–3 sentences: install or not, what to change, and any follow-up.]

---

Deeper Materials

This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:

• references/injection-patterns.md — The Injection Pattern Library: What Malicious Skills Actually Look Like. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.
• templates/audit-report.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

Dimension	0	5	10
Coverage depth	Only the markdown body was skimmed; bundled scripts untouched	Body read carefully, scripts glanced at, but encodings and invisible characters not checked	Every bundled script read line-by-line, plus codepoint/encoding inspection for hidden content, with scope stated in the report
Evidence precision	Findings say "looks risky" with no location	Findings cite lines but mix observation with speculation	Every finding pins an exact line/file reference with a faithful, inert description of the pattern and why it's dangerous
Verdict discipline	Vague caution with no install decision	A verdict is given but doesn't follow from the severities found	Verdict applies the severity rule exactly (any high ⇒ do not install), stated up front with reasons
Calibration	Every mention of keys or network activity flagged as malicious	One benign pattern over-flagged or one real risk missed	Benign documented examples cleared by name, intent and context weighed, nothing real missed

Quality Checks

• Every bundled script was read, not just the markdown body
• Each finding cites a concrete snippet as evidence (no vague "looks risky")
• The verdict follows the rule: any high-severity finding ⇒ Do not install
• Legitimate examples (e.g. a documented curl https://example.com) are not over-flagged
• The recommendation is actionable (what to remove/change, not just "be careful")

Anti-Patterns

• Do not pass a skill as safe without reading its scripts — prose can look clean while a script exfiltrates data
• Do not treat every mention of "API key" or "curl" as malicious; weigh intent and context
• Do not give a vague verdict — always land on install / caution / do-not-install with reasons
• Do not ignore zero-width or invisible characters; they are a classic way to hide instructions
• Do not assume a high star count or popular author means a skill is safe — audit the content itself

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Review a skill for security."
• "Check a prompt for injection."
• "Vet a community skill."
• "Assess whether an instruction file is safe to run."