Skill Auditor 🔍

A structured framework that teaches your agent how to audit ClawHub and MCP skills before you install them. Not a scanner — a systematic review methodology.

Unlike automated scanners that give false confidence, Skill Auditor walks through what matters: permissions, behavior, credentials, and persistence — so you understand exactly what a skill will do on your system.

Why this exists

13.4% of ClawHub skills have critical security issues (Snyk ToxicSkills study)
341 malicious skills were found in a single campaign (ClawHavoc incident, Feb 2026)
Automated scanners can miss context-dependent threats and provide false security
Understanding what you're installing is better than trusting a green checkmark

How to use

Ask your agent to audit any skill before installing:

Audit this skill before I install it: [skill-name or URL]

Review the security of @author/skill-name on ClawHub

I want to install [skill]. Is it safe?

Audit Framework

The agent follows a 6-domain checklist. Each domain produces a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict.

1. Identity & Provenance

[ ] Author has a GitHub profile with other projects
[ ] Skill has a public source repository (not ClawHub-only)
[ ] Repository has commit history (not a single-commit dump)
[ ] Author identity is consistent across platforms
FAIL if: No source repo, no author history, single-commit repo

2. Permission & Scope Analysis

[ ] requires.env only lists credentials the skill actually uses
[ ] No credentials unrelated to the skill's purpose
[ ] File access limited to workspace directory
[ ] No requests for system-wide permissions
FAIL if: Requests credentials beyond stated purpose, accesses files outside workspace

3. Behavior vs Description Match

[ ] Every file in the skill serves the stated purpose
[ ] No network calls to undeclared endpoints
[ ] No data exfiltration patterns (sending user data to external URLs)
[ ] Script behavior matches what SKILL.md describes
FAIL if: Hidden functionality, undeclared network calls, description mismatch

4. Credential & Secret Handling

[ ] API keys stored in env vars, not hardcoded
[ ] No credentials logged or written to non-protected files
[ ] OAuth tokens have minimal required scopes
[ ] Cached tokens stored in workspace, not system-wide
FAIL if: Hardcoded secrets, credentials in logs, excessive OAuth scopes

5. Persistence & Side Effects

[ ] Files written only within workspace boundaries
[ ] No system-level modifications (crontab, /etc/, systemd)
[ ] No auto-start or background processes installed
[ ] Uninstall is clean (no orphaned files or processes)
FAIL if: System modifications, persistent background processes, dirty uninstall

6. Dependency & Supply Chain

[ ] Dependencies are well-known packages (not obscure single-author libs)
[ ] No curl | bash or curl | python install patterns
[ ] No post-install scripts that download additional code
[ ] Package versions are pinned (not latest)
FAIL if: Unknown dependencies, pipe-to-shell installs, unpinned versions

Output Format

The agent produces a structured report:

## Skill Audit Report: [skill-name]

Author: [name] | Source: [repo URL or "ClawHub only"]
Version: [X.Y.Z] | Files: [count] | Scripts: [count]

### Verdicts

| Domain                    | Verdict | Notes                |
|---------------------------|---------|----------------------|
| Identity & Provenance     | PASS    |                      |
| Permission & Scope        | WARN    | Requests broad perms |
| Behavior vs Description   | PASS    |                      |
| Credential Handling       | PASS    |                      |
| Persistence & Side Effects| FAIL    | Writes to /etc/      |
| Dependency & Supply Chain | PASS    |                      |

### Overall: ⚠️ WARN — Review flagged items before installing

### Flagged Items
1. [Domain]: [Specific issue and recommendation]

### What to Ask the Author
1. Why does the skill need [permission X]?
2. Can [flagged behavior] be made opt-in?

Limitations

This is a review framework, not a deterministic scanner
The agent reads and reasons about skill files — it cannot execute or sandbox them
Always read the source code yourself for high-privilege skills
A PASS verdict means no issues were found, not that the skill is guaranteed safe

Trust Hierarchy

When evaluating skill trust, consider this hierarchy:

Highest trust: Open-source on GitHub + active maintainer + ClawHub Benign scan + you read the code
Moderate trust: GitHub repo exists + ClawHub Benign scan + reasonable permissions
Low trust: ClawHub-only (no source repo) + Suspicious scan + broad permissions
No trust: No source, no author history, requests unrelated credentials