@chemx/starter-kit@26.9.16-41
Chemical X Protocol: Private drop-in architecture starter kit and capsule generator
AI Security Review
scanned 11d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe source shows explicit-user-command agent configuration changes, which warrant a warning under the agent integration policy. The declared postinstall target is missing, but no source evidence establishes what it would do or a malicious chain.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The package declares a postinstall command, but its referenced scripts/postinstall.mjs file is absent from the package snapshot.
- The installer wizard offers a user-selected query setup that can append instructions to an existing AGENTS.md file.
- The added AGENTS.md instructions direct AI agents to use the package’s search command before broad searches and file dumps.
- The MCP installer writes a Chemical X server entry into project Cursor configuration when explicitly invoked.
- A test confirms the project MCP installer creates Cursor MCP configuration.
- The AGENTS.md mutation is part of a selectable installer wizard, not an automatic install hook.
- The MCP installer is reached through explicit install-mcp or setup-mcp CLI commands.
- The inspected excerpts show no credential collection or outbound credential transmission.
Source & flagged code
6 flagged · loading sourcePackage defines install-time lifecycle scripts.
package.jsonView on unpkgInstall-time lifecycle script is not statically allowlisted and needs review.
package.jsonView on unpkgPackage source references child process execution.
cli/navigator-share.jsView on unpkg · L2Findings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @chemx/starter-kit@26.9.16-41.
See all versions of @chemx/starter-kit for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of @chemx/starter-kit@26.9.16-41 before allowing it. Restrict the permissions described in this report.
- Choose an independently verified alternative or release. This report does not establish that other versions are safe.
Evidence last updated: .
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.