review-diagnostics@1.0.0
CAUTION· static onlyPublisher claims: "文稿审稿诊断工具集。提供事实核查、读者模拟、结构分析、传播力评估和反AI味检测等审稿技法。Use when: (1) 需要对文章/播客稿/视频脚本进行深度审稿 (2) 发现某段读起来不顺/走神/假/有AI味 (3) 用户要求逐句审稿、事实核查、结构评估。Not for: 语法检查、文字校对、帮写文章。" 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 71/100 (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
No findings across 923 lines in 8 files.
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
9 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%- Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim mayf3: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.