tech-route-comparison@1.0.1
CAUTION· static onlyPublisher claims: "Evidence-backed comparison of two or more technical routes, architectures, or solution paths. Use when the user asks for technical pre-research, technical route comparison, route selection, TRL assessment, maturity assessment, readiness evaluation, opportunity mapping, or any management-grade technical report deliverable — even if they only ask for initiation analysis, committee-ready materials, feasibility, or "which route is better"." 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 2026-11-09 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 978 lines in 19 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 yuanzhian-patsnap: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.