Propose a patch

A fix the maintainer can act on, with the evidence attached. It opens under your GitHub account in your browser; KillerSkills holds no token and never modifies the package. The fix is verified the only way we verify anything: the next crawl re-runs the new version in the honeypot. 61 · Caution

Evidence

The sandbox observed nothing beyond the static findings; the proposal cites those.

Diff · removes 7 caught lines

Download .patch

diff --git a/tests/test_accept_build.py b/tests/test_accept_build.py
--- a/tests/test_accept_build.py
+++ b/tests/test_accept_build.py
@@ -58,1 +58,0 @@
-msg = "Failed: https://user:[email protected]/repo/project.git"
@@ -64,1 +63,0 @@
-msg = "Clone failed: https://x-token-auth:[email protected]/org/repo"
@@ -80,1 +78,0 @@
-msg = "https://user:[email protected]/repo"
diff --git a/qcoda_mcp/repo.py b/qcoda_mcp/repo.py
--- a/qcoda_mcp/repo.py
+++ b/qcoda_mcp/repo.py
@@ -41,1 +41,0 @@
-https://user:[email protected]/org/repo.git -> github.com/org/repo
diff --git a/tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py b/tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py
--- a/tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py
+++ b/tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py
@@ -441,1 +441,0 @@
-assert url == "https://user:[email protected]/x/y.git"
diff --git a/tests/test_mcp.py b/tests/test_mcp.py
--- a/tests/test_mcp.py
+++ b/tests/test_mcp.py
@@ -35,1 +35,0 @@
-assert normalize_repo_url("https://user:[email protected]/org/repo.git") == "github.com/org/repo"
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -520,1 +520,0 @@
-…dex) plus per-fact files under `.qcoda/memory/`. All tools read this directory. Edit files directly to update; `MEMORY.md` is loaded into every session via the wrappers' read-only injection. **One-tim…

Zero-context hunks: apply with git apply --unidiff-zero fix.patch on the tagged source of 0.1.0. If the behavior is intended, declare it (host under permissions.network, a line in the README) instead of removing it; the next crawl scores declarations.

Issue / PR body

Title: qcoda-mcp: URL with embedded credentials (KillerSkills verdict caution 61)

## What the honeypot observed
KillerSkills ran **[email protected]** in an isolated sandbox (decoy credentials, recording proxy, syscall trace; engine 1.8.1) and scored it **CAUTION 61/100**. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

- See the findings below.

Full trace and findings: https://killerskills.ai/skills/pypi/qcoda-mcp/0.1.0

## Findings with a location
- `tests/test_accept_build.py:80` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_accept_build.py:80 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `qcoda_mcp/repo.py:41` · URL with embedded credentials — qcoda_mcp/repo.py:41 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_accept_build.py:64` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_accept_build.py:64 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py:441` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_llm_retry_d103.py:441 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_mcp.py:35` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_mcp.py:35 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_accept_build.py:58` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_accept_build.py:58 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `README.md:520` · Instructs the agent to modify its persistent memory or instruction files — README.md:520 · Instructs the agent to modify its persistent memory or instruction files · informational: not an instruction file

## Proposed change
The attached patch removes the 7 lines above. If the behavior is intended, the fix is to declare it instead: list the host under `permissions.network` (or the MCP manifest) and say in the README why the package needs it; the next crawl will re-score it with the declaration taken into account.

## How this will be verified
Nothing is "verified safe" by assertion. When a new version is published, KillerSkills re-runs it in the honeypot and the verdict page updates; you can trigger it early from the verdict page ("Re-scan after I publish a fix"). Reply here or at [email protected] if you believe the verdict is wrong; disputes are reviewed by a person and the outcome is published on the verdict page.

_Proposed through killerskills.ai/threats by a user of the package, under their own GitHub account. The evidence is public; the package was never modified by KillerSkills._

No GitHub source is recorded for this package, so there is nothing to open; paste the body into the registry's support channel.

We count proposals opened, not merged: a merge shows up as a new version that the crawl re-runs. Disputes: the maintainer can contest the verdict from its page; a person reviews it and the outcome is published.