create-pmos@0.461.0
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 5d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe flagged credential flows are tied to their respective services: `GITHUB_TOKEN` is sent to GitHub's release API, and prompt routing to TypeSafe requires a saved key, repository consent and routing enabled. The GUI dependency install is also limited to the user's explicit `workspace` command.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The package exposes a CLI entry point for scaffolding the PMOS kit.
- Installing the GUI and its native dependency is limited to the explicit `workspace` subcommand.
- Jev prompt routing requires a saved key, repository consent and routing enabled; routing is off by default.
- When routing is enabled, prompts are withheld if the secret scan or excluded-path check matches.
- The TypeSafe request uses the fixed `api.typesafe.ai` host and refuses to make a request without a key.
- The PowerShell installer uses `GITHUB_TOKEN` only as authorization for GitHub's release API.
- The Anthropic API key is described as a key the user pastes and saves in Settings for Claude API runs.
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@0.461.0.
See all versions of create-pmos for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of create-pmos@0.461.0 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.