create-pmos@0.447.0
Scaffold the PMOS portable kit — run the PMOS product-management workflow (initiative → lane-fit spec → contract → build → three gates, with work-type lanes for features, research, maintenance, incidents, and content) entirely inside your own repo, with a
AI Security Review
scanned 6d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe flagged credential flow sends GITHUB_TOKEN to GitHub's own release API, and there is no package lifecycle hook in the manifest. The potentially sensitive prompt-routing feature is documented, uses a loopback bridge, and sends prompts to Jev only after three gates are enabled.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The package is a CLI for scaffolding the PMOS kit; its entry point copies the bundled payload into the requested target directory.
- The flagged Windows installer sends GITHUB_TOKEN as an Authorization header to GitHub's own release API while looking up Git for Windows.
- Prompt routing uses the workspace's loopback endpoint; sending prompts to Jev requires a saved key, repository consent, and a routing switch that defaults off.
- When explicitly run, the scaffold command offers the package's cockpit plugin through the repository's Claude settings.
- With all routing gates enabled, prompt text can be sent for classification, though the package documents this behavior and screens secrets first.
Source & flagged code
12 flaggedPackage contains a possible secret pattern.
workspace/premium-viewer-share-test.jsView on unpkg · L61Package source references child process execution.
bin/create-pmos.jsView on unpkg · L23Package source references shell execution.
bin/create-pmos.jsFindings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to create-pmos@0.447.0.
See all versions of create-pmos for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of create-pmos@0.447.0 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.