Refactoring Workflow
Fail
Audited by Gen Agent Trust Hub on Feb 17, 2026
Risk Level: HIGHCOMMAND_EXECUTION
Full Analysis
- [COMMAND_EXECUTION] (HIGH): Shell command injection vulnerability in bash functions. The variables
$old_nameand$file_updatedare directly interpolated into shell commands insiderecord_refactoring,update_refactoring_progress, andvalidate_refactoringwithout proper escaping or sanitization. - Evidence in
SKILL.md:$(rg --files-with-matches "\b$old_name\b" --type ruby 2>/dev/null | head -20 || echo "None detected")within a subshell interpolation. - Evidence in
SKILL.md:bd comment $TASK_ID "... $file_updated ..."uses raw variable expansion. - Risk: An attacker can execute arbitrary commands by setting a refactoring name like
"; touch exploit; "which would be evaluated by the shell when the skill runs its logging or validation functions. - [INDIRECT_PROMPT_INJECTION] (LOW): The skill possesses a surface for indirect prompt injection by ingesting file contents and outputting them to a task tracker.
- Ingestion points: File system via
rg(ripgrep) searching for patterns. - Boundary markers: Absent. Data is placed directly into Markdown comments for the
bdcommand. - Capability inventory: File system read/write (
rg,mv,sed), Command execution (bdCLI), Network communication (viabd). - Sanitization: Absent. No filtering of the data returned by
rgbefore it is sent to the external task tracker.
Recommendations
- AI detected serious security threats
Audit Metadata