lgd-change-gate@0.1.0
CAUTIONPublisher claims: "Medical-device AI/ML change-control judgment per the LGD three laws (有籍 Recorded / 有证 Evidenced / 有门禁 Gated). Trigger when the user asks whether a device-software or algorithm change requires change control, asks for a risk verdict (pass/hold/reject), asks for change-level classification (minor/major/critical), or asks for an LGD-theory judgment with auditable reasons. Applies to regulated environments (FDA 510(k)/PMA, EU MDR, ISO 13485) and other AI/ML medical-device change evaluations." Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.
Is [email protected] safe to install?
KillerSkills analysed it statically (a sandbox run is pending) on 2026-11-03 and scored it 64/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. 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
What would make this Verified
16 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%- Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim zhaoxinghua09-cell: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.
- New publisher≈ +3 on the totalTime clears this on its own after 14 and 30 days. Claiming the handle (+50) is the fastest way past it.
- File type combined with upload action≈ +2 on the totalRemove the call, or declare the host in frontmatter and explain in the README what is sent and why.
- Python subprocess execution detected≈ +2 on the totalBuild commands from fixed arguments, never from interpolated strings; prefer an API client over shelling out.