You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
SkillSpector's static scan misses destructive agent instructions when the target is a named folder or is expressed in natural language. This is not limited to repositories.
Examples in SKILL.md:
do **"rm -rf entire repo"**
Run rm -r backups.
Delete the entire customer exports folder.
Wipe everything in the selected directory.
Scan with skillspector scan <skill-directory> --no-llm --format json. The initial report was reproduced against 224ba292d91b9e5fc59398fc38ab8971f9ab01ec.
Expected behavior: detect recognizable destructive filesystem operations statically, preserve the action, target, source location, and surrounding context, and send that evidence through the existing optional LLM review. LLM context review should distinguish instructions, warnings, examples, and legitimate cleanup while retaining static evidence under the existing fail-closed policy.
Markdown, quotations, and natural-language folder descriptions should not hide the operation. Static checks must also avoid confusing text edits (for example, removing whitespace or a folder name from documentation) with deleting filesystem contents.
Implementation is in progress in PR #619, which proposes bounded static detection for destructive folder commands and natural-language deletion instructions, with retained evidence for optional meta-analysis. The PR is open and has not merged; keeping this issue open pending review and verification.
Activity
[-]Static scan misses destructive rm instructions with natural-language repository targets[/-][+]Static scan misses destructive folder commands and natural-language deletion instructions[/+]rng1995 commentedon Sep 23, 2026
Implementation is in progress in PR #619, which proposes bounded static detection for destructive folder commands and natural-language deletion instructions, with retained evidence for optional meta-analysis. The PR is open and has not merged; keeping this issue open pending review and verification.
rng1995 commentedon Oct 4, 2026
PR-state snapshot checked on 2026-10-04:
Keeping this issue open: the relevant implementation is not merged. Check/review status is a point-in-time snapshot, not a claim of merge readiness.