Skip to content
Report library
Purpose / Other

Prototype Skill Security Audit

What the author says it does (original text)

Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.

Independent security check

Security risks found

Files checked
4
Risks found
3
Could it run dangerous commands?Looks for programs run straight after downloading, remote control of your computer, and hidden commands.No risks found
Could it expose your files or keys?Looks for uploads of files containing passwords or keys, and keys written directly in the code.No risks found
Could it delete files or keep running?Looks for broad file deletion, disk overwrites, and programs set to start automatically.Risks found: 1
Medium risk

Finishing a prototype triggers persistent Git and issue-record changes

Source references: 3
What we found

The Skill goes beyond creating temporary files: it directs the agent to commit a throwaway branch and record a branch pointer, verdict, and settled question in an implementation issue or commit. These are persistent repository and project-record changes, not merely a local preview.

Why this matters

If the user authorized only building or viewing a prototype, the agent could still create commits, alter branch state, or use the user's account to edit a shared issue, leaving unwanted history and notifications.

The skill explicitly requires committing the prototype to a throwaway branch and recording a branch pointer, verdict, and resolved question in an implementation issue or commit. These are persistent Git and potentially hosted-project account changes, beyond merely producing a local preview. Keeping the branch outside main and cleaning main reduces production contamination, but the instructions do not require separate approval before committing or updating an issue. Users can restrict it to local files and require confirmation before branch, commit, or issue changes.

SKILL.md:26In the instructionsOpen original file
5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.
Show 2 other places
UI.md:98In the instructionsOpen original file
### 6. Capture the answer and clean upOnce a variant has won, capture the answer (which variant and why), then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. Fold the winner into the real code and move the rest onto the throwaway branch, not into main:- **Sub-shape A**: fold the winner into the existing page; drop the losing variants and the switcher from main.- **Sub-shape B**: promote the winning variant to a real route; drop the throwaway route and the switcher from main.The full set of variants is the primary source, so it lands on the throwaway branch, not the bin, since variant components and the switcher left in the main branch rot fast and confuse the next reader.
SKILL.md:21In the instructionsOpen original file
1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious, but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE, wipe me" name.4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.
Could it bypass safety checks?Looks for skipped website security checks, excessive file access, or actions that skip your approval.Risks found: 2
Medium risk

Hiding only the switcher does not prevent production access to experimental variants

Source references: 5
What we found

Variants are mounted on an existing route that keeps its real data fetching and authentication, and `?variant=` selects the rendered content. The production check is specified only for hiding the switcher; it does not reject the parameter or exclude variant code.

Why this matters

If prototype code reaches production, a user who knows or guesses the parameter could still open an untested experimental view with minimal error handling. A hidden switcher is not an access control.

The source supports this risk. On an existing page, a URL parameter selects variants while real data fetching and authentication remain active; the production gate explicitly covers only the floating switcher. If prototype code reaches production before cleanup, a user who knows or constructs `?variant=` may still reach experimental rendering. This does not bypass authentication, but it can expose under-tested UI to authorized users. Users can ask whether production builds exclude all variant code or reject the parameter.

UI.md:18In the instructionsOpen original file
### Sub-shape A: adjustment to an existing page (preferred)The route already exists. Variants are rendered **on the same route**, gated by a `?variant=` URL search param. The existing data fetching, params, and auth all stay. Only the rendering swaps. This is the default; pick it unless there's a specific reason not to.If the prototype is for something that doesn't yet have a page but *would naturally live inside one* (a new section of the dashboard, a new card on the settings screen, a new step in an existing flow), it's still sub-shape A. Mount the variants inside the host page.
Show 4 other places
UI.md:85In the instructionsOpen original file
Behaviour:- Clicking an arrow updates the URL search param (use the framework's router, e.g. `router.replace` on Next, `navigate` on React Router, etc) so the variant is shareable and reload-stable.- Keyboard: `←` and `→` arrow keys also cycle. Don't intercept arrow keys when an `<input>`, `<textarea>`, or `[contenteditable]` is focused.- Visually distinct from the page (e.g. high-contrast pill, subtle shadow) so it's obviously not part of the design being evaluated.- Hidden in production builds: gate on `process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production'` or an equivalent check, so a stray prototype merge can't ship the bar to users.
UI.md:107In the instructionsOpen original file
## Anti-patterns- **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.- **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.- **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub: the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.
UI.md:87In the instructionsOpen original file
- Clicking an arrow updates the URL search param (use the framework's router, e.g. `router.replace` on Next, `navigate` on React Router, etc) so the variant is shareable and reload-stable.- Keyboard: `←` and `→` arrow keys also cycle. Don't intercept arrow keys when an `<input>`, `<textarea>`, or `[contenteditable]` is focused.- Visually distinct from the page (e.g. high-contrast pill, subtle shadow) so it's obviously not part of the design being evaluated.- Hidden in production builds: gate on `process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production'` or an equivalent check, so a stray prototype merge can't ship the bar to users.
UI.md:98In the instructionsOpen original file
### 6. Capture the answer and clean upOnce a variant has won, capture the answer (which variant and why), then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. Fold the winner into the real code and move the rest onto the throwaway branch, not into main:- **Sub-shape A**: fold the winner into the existing page; drop the losing variants and the switcher from main.- **Sub-shape B**: promote the winning variant to a real route; drop the throwaway route and the switcher from main.The full set of variants is the primary source, so it lands on the throwaway branch, not the bin, since variant components and the switcher left in the main branch rot fast and confuse the next reader.
Medium risk

Untested prototype logic is explicitly designed to be lifted into production code

Source references: 4
What we found

The shared rules omit tests and provide only enough error handling to run, while the logic branch says the core module is not throwaway and directs the validated reducer, machine, or functions into the real module. Unlike the UI branch, it does not explicitly require a production-grade rewrite first.

Why this matters

Unexamined illegal states, edge cases, or error paths could enter business logic and affect data correctness or security-sensitive decisions.

The risk is supported, though the skill does not say to ship the whole prototype page. Its general rules explicitly omit tests and most error handling, while the logic guide calls the core module non-throwaway and says it can be lifted into the real module. “Validated” implies design validation through the prototype, but no production testing, security review, or error-handling gate is specified. If “lift” is treated as copying unchanged, production business logic may be inadequately verified. Users can require review, tests, and failure handling before integration.

SKILL.md:23In the instructionsOpen original file
2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE, wipe me" name.4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.
Show 3 other places
LOGIC.md:22In the instructionsOpen original file
### 2. Isolate the logic in a portable modulePut the actual logic (the bit that's answering the question) in a single `<script>` block written as a small, pure module that could be lifted out and dropped into the real codebase later. The page around it is throwaway; this module isn't.
LOGIC.md:56In the instructionsOpen original file
### 5. Capture the answer and the prototypeOnce the prototype has answered its question, capture the answer, then capture the prototype the way the [SKILL](SKILL.md) describes. The logic-specific mapping: the validated reducer / machine / function set lifts into the real module (the decision, absorbed); the HTML shell rides along to the throwaway branch that keeps the prototype as a primary source, and being one self-contained file, it stays trivially re-runnable there.
LOGIC.md:60In the instructionsOpen original file
## Anti-patterns- **Don't add tests.** A prototype that needs tests is no longer a prototype.- **Don't wire it to the real database.** Use in-memory state unless the question is specifically about persistence.- **Don't generalise.** No "what if we wanted to support X later." The prototype answers one question.- **Don't blur the logic and the page together.** If the pure module references the DOM, `document`, or button handlers, it's no longer liftable. Keep the page as a thin shell over a pure module.- **Don't reach for a framework, bundler, or server.** One file the recipient double-clicks; a React app or a dev server defeats "shareable".- **Don't ship the HTML shell into production.** The page is optimised for being clicked through by hand. The logic module behind it is the bit worth keeping.
Could it mislead the AI or hide text?Checks the skill instructions for requests to ignore you, influence the report, or hide text in invisible characters.No risks found
Could it change links or payment recipients without asking?Looks for forced referral or payment changes combined with instructions to hide the change.No risks found

Inside this skill

2 instruction sections

The Skill chooses between a logic/state prototype and a UI prototype based on the question. If the question is ambiguous, it chooses from the surrounding code and records that assumption in the prototype.

View source
SKILL.md:12In the instructionsOpen original file
Identify which question is being answered, using the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a single shareable HTML file (free-play buttons plus tabbed guided walkthroughs) that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper, and that a non-developer can drive.- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.The two branches produce very different artifacts, so getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.

The logic branch creates a shareable, double-clickable HTML file and renders the full relevant state after actions. State is in memory by default; a scratch database or local file is used only when persistence is explicitly under examination.

View source
SKILL.md:22In the instructionsOpen original file
1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious, but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE, wipe me" name.4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.
LOGIC.md:35In the instructionsOpen original file
### 3. Build the shareable HTML fileOne file, plain HTML/CSS/JS: no framework, no bundler, no server, everything inline so it opens by double-click and survives being emailed around. Anyone should be able to run it by opening it.Write it for a non-developer. Every label is in **domain language**, not code: buttons and state read like the business, not the reducer. Explain in plain words what's happening.

The UI branch prefers embedding variants in an existing page, retaining that page's data fetching, parameters, and authentication, with selection through a shareable URL parameter. It says mutations should use a stub rather than the real backend.

View source
UI.md:18In the instructionsOpen original file
### Sub-shape A: adjustment to an existing page (preferred)The route already exists. Variants are rendered **on the same route**, gated by a `?variant=` URL search param. The existing data fetching, params, and auth all stay. Only the rendering swaps. This is the default; pick it unless there's a specific reason not to.If the prototype is for something that doesn't yet have a page but *would naturally live inside one* (a new section of the dashboard, a new card on the settings screen, a new step in an existing flow), it's still sub-shape A. Mount the variants inside the host page.
UI.md:107In the instructionsOpen original file
## Anti-patterns- **Variants that differ only in colour or copy.** That's a tweak, not a prototype. Real variants disagree about structure.- **Sharing too much code between variants.** A shared `<Header>` is fine; a shared `<Layout>` defeats the point. Each variant should be free to throw out the layout.- **Wiring variants to real mutations.** Read-only prototypes are fine. If a variant needs to mutate, point it at a stub: the question is "what should this look like", not "does the backend work".- **Promoting the prototype directly to production.** The variant code was written under prototype constraints (no tests, minimal error handling). Rewrite it properly when you fold it in.

After completion, the Skill directs the agent to fold the validated decision into production code, commit the prototype to a separate throwaway branch, and record a branch pointer and conclusion in the implementation issue.

View source
SKILL.md:26In the instructionsOpen original file
5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.
Start here · InstructionsSKILL.md
prototype
Lines connect the instruction file to its sections, not an observed execution order. Select a section to read the source.

File reference map

References: 6
Files making referencesReferenced content
Lines show actual file references, not execution order. Select a node to highlight its connections and inspect the files and source locations. Dashed lines include files that still need locating.
Files and check records4 files

Coverage and gaps

Content covered in each file

These are the source ranges included in this check, not a guarantee that every issue has been resolved.

  • SKILL.mdFull text included
  • LOGIC.mdFull text included
  • UI.mdFull text included
  • agents/openai.yamlFull text included

This report is for the version above. We read the available code and instructions without running the skill or checking extra packages it installs. This is not a promise of safety: a different version or setup may behave differently.

  • LOGIC.mdSupporting file
  • SKILL.mdInstructions
  • UI.mdSupporting file
  • agents/openai.yamlSupporting file

Operations mentioned in code and instructions

Read keys or account settings
UI.md:90In the instructionsOpen original file
- Visually distinct from the page (e.g. high-contrast pill, subtle shadow) so it's obviously not part of the design being evaluated.- Hidden in production builds: gate on `process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production'` or an equivalent check, so a stray prototype merge can't ship the bar to users.
Lines read
212
File checksum (to compare versions)
cb5ae3dfa2bf30329390f656aad9353368c20f99d9f213db90de78ac166d1b6d