What the reviewer found
Its own frontmatter labels this an inert test fixture for a scanner named skanna, lives under examples/suspicious/, and every URL points at the reserved, non-resolving example.invalid domain. It intentionally contains prompt-injection and exfiltration phrasing to exercise scanner rules, not a real attack.
example-or-fixture— an example or test fixtureprompt-injection— tries to steer the agentexfiltration— sends data outremote-exec— runs code fetched from the network
What was read
The file as it ships in proluct/skanna:
examples/suspicious/pipeline-demo/SKILL.md
What the static scan said
The scan flagged 4things. The reviewer kept 0 and dismissed 4 as false.
P1Instruction-override phrasing — false positiveE1Sends data to an external URL — false positiveSC2Downloads and executes remote code — false positiveNETMakes network calls — false positive
How this review was made
Sonnet 5 read the files above on 7 September 2026 and answered three questions: is it dangerous to whoever installs it, is each scanner finding real, and what should the installer know. The verdict is bound to the file's hash; when the file changes, it is scanned afresh and reviewed again. A script that changes while the definition does not is not re-reviewed — that is a known gap. How the scan and the review work.