chemx@26.9.16-668
Chemical X Protocol: Private drop-in architecture starter kit and capsule generator
AI Security Review
scanned 11d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiSource inspection confirms agent-configuration mutation and agent-steering text, but the relevant installer is interactive and the declared postinstall target is absent. This supports a warning for agent capability risk, not a confirmed install-hook attack.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The installer writes instructions into an existing AGENTS.md telling AI agents to use the package’s search command before broad searches.
- The query-machine setup is selected through an interactive installer; the source inspected does not show this write running from the npm lifecycle hook.
- The MCP installer adds a package-owned server entry to project Cursor and VS Code configuration when invoked.
- package.json declares a postinstall script, but its referenced scripts/postinstall.mjs file is absent from the package snapshot.
- The AGENTS.md modification is part of an interactive setup choice, rather than a confirmed automatic install-time action.
- The inspected MCP setup preserves existing MCP server entries and adds a named Chemical X entry.
- The postinstall hook’s referenced file is missing, so the snapshot does not establish that it executes.
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/audit-preflight-git.jsView on unpkg · L1Findings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to chemx@26.9.16-668.
See all versions of chemx for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of chemx@26.9.16-668 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.