Loading the registry…
Cursor Rules are .cursorrules / .cursor/rules files that steer Cursor's AI; scanned with the same pipeline.
We found this by crawling public sources and nobody has attested to it. That is how most of the registry gets here, and it is not a mark against the artifact — it only means no authenticated act of publication is on record. An artifact can be the vendor's own and still appear here.
Cursor Rules are .cursorrules / .cursor/rules files that steer Cursor's AI. Review the scanned source before copying them into your own project.
nerlo install -- lms-tutorial
5 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v1.4.0
0 findings · 0.6s
v2.0.11
70 findings · 8.8s
v0.3.74
5 findings · 6.1s
v0.1.0
2 findings · 5.8s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 5.8s
vv0.3.2
No Go packages were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.1s
v0.1.0
This scanner found nothing in this artifact that it assesses. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 1.8s
No report in this scan: govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2026 | Scan Halted | — | agentshield: completecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral: completenerlo-install-instruction: completecapslock ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-multi-source ·n/a: not applicable | rejected |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Flagged badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
Out of 77 findings across every scanner that examined this package.
Not reviewed is not the same as clean. Those 66 findings stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity, as they would have without this review.
The model could have called any of these a false positive and did not.
2 FILE_MAGIC_MISMATCH
Files: /repo/hooks/useWindowSize.ts, /repo/scripts/seed.ts · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 AAK-LEGAL-002
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-001
Files: lib/auth.ts · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-007
Files: lib/auth.ts · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SUPPLY-003
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SUPPLY-005
Files: package-lock.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 EXCESSIVE_FILE_COUNT
Files: /repo/. · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 LOW_ANALYZABILITY
Files: /repo · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 opt.nerlo-rules.nerlo-hardcoded-external-egress
Files: /repo/lib/judge0.ts · reported by nerlo-behavioral
1 opt.nerlo-rules.nerlo-js-secret-to-network-egress
Files: /repo/lib/judge0.ts · reported by nerlo-behavioral
66 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: DATA_EXFIL_JS_NETWORK, SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE · Files: /repo/app/(dashboard)/(routes)/teacher/courses/[courseId]/_components/actions.tsx, /repo/app/(dashboard)/(routes)/teacher/courses/[courseId]/_components/category-form.tsx, /repo/app/(dashboard)/(routes)/teacher/courses/[courseId]/_components/description-form.tsx and 47 more · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical findings indicate credential exposure and network egress.
Six critical findings are present in `/repo/scripts/contestProblem.cjs`. The artifact has capabilities for network egress, with one high finding indicating a secret could be sent over the network from `/repo/lib/judge0.ts`. Another high finding suggests potential OAuth credential exposure in `lib/auth.ts`. Additionally, 64 medium findings point to general network data exfiltration capabilities.
Concern level assessed by the review: Critical. This is the review's scale, not the registry badge.
Reviewed by gemini-2.5-flash. The model sees the findings, not your code, and cannot change a score.