data-integrity-auditor

[Skill Scanner] Backtick command substitution detected All findings: [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] [HIGH] command_injection: Backtick command substitution detected (CI003) [AITech 9.1.4] This skill appears to be a legitimate data-integrity auditor: queries and fixes map clearly to its stated purpose. There is no sign of data exfiltration, obfuscation, or backdoors. The main security concern is operational: the automated fix and migration scripts perform destructive actions (DELETE/UPDATE/ALTER) without shown safeguards (transactions, dry-run, backups, confirmations), which could lead to accidental data loss if applied directly to production. Recommend adding explicit dry-run mode, transactional safety, backups, explicit user confirmation, and safer monitoring queries before running fixes in production. LLM verification: The code implements a legitimate data-integrity auditing tool that reads the database via Prisma and reports integrity issues with suggested fixes. I found no indicators of malware or data-exfiltration. The primary security risks are operational: the tool proposes destructive SQL without shown safeguards (dry-run, confirmation, transactions, backups, deterministic duplicate resolution, or scoped WHERE clauses). If consumers automatically execute suggested fixes, accidental data loss or incorrect