euthyna-en@0.11.1
CAUTION· static onlyPublisher claims: "The adjudication discipline and delivery gate for code security audits. Use when the user asks to audit the security of a piece of code, a pull request, a change, or to verify an existing vulnerability claim. It does three things: supply the deterministic facts a model cannot compute (callers, test coverage, git history origins), judge every claim against six gates, and downgrade any claim that cannot produce evidence to "observation" rather than a finding. The slash command may carry a mode word: pr = audit a change; graph = draw the provenance lineage of deleted code; repo = dependency surface only; claim = verify an existing vulnerability conclusion; gate = check an already-written report; help = print this table. With no mode word the full audit runs (the mapping table lives in the body). Not for: asking about the details of a single CVE, running an existing scanner once, pure documentation or formatting changes, or when the user explicitly wants a quick summary and accepts the risk." Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.
Coverage
Static only; nothing was run yet.The label rests on the code, the instruction files and the publisher. The honeypot run replaces this verdict when it completes.
Is [email protected] safe to install?
KillerSkills analysed it statically (a sandbox run is pending) on 2026-11-11 and scored it 70/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. Notable findings: Rule modification attempt; Rule modification attempt; Rule modification attempt. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.
Behavior trace
Queued for honeypot run · static analysis onlyThis version has not been detonated yet. The score above counts behavior as unknown (50/100), so it cannot read Verified until the honeypot run completes and replaces this verdict.
Static findings
### Rule 2: `approximate` may not participate in gatesFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.### Rule 2: evidence is mandatory down to `file:line`; placeholders are bannedFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.> You must follow the full validation chain — not just the few lines around the dangerous operation.Fix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.### Rule 3: missing data is not cleanFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.### Rule 1: measurable quantities come from commands, the model only interpretsFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.### Rule 1: `unknown` is not "clean"Fix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.### Rule 3: when data is missing, read the coverage table firstFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.Cost to the agent
Tokens estimated at four characters each. Skills load their instruction text when triggered; the figure is what that costs.
Known vulnerabilities
Vulnerability advisories (OSV) cover npm and PyPI packages; this registry has no advisory database.
What would make this Verified
10 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%- Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim modusensus: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.