Loading the registry…
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.
Choose your runtime: the CLI writes the mcpServers config entry for that target.
nerlo install --target claude-code -- connect-it
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
6 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 · 1.0s
v2.0.11
6 findings · 11.9s
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 ·!: incompletenerlo-multi-source ·n/a: not applicable | rejected |
Per-scanner history:
v0.3.74
9 findings · 5.3s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 6.5s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 6.5s
vv0.3.2
Incomplete run
0 findings · 0.7s
v0.1.0
This scanner found nothing in this artifact that it assesses. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 1.0s
No report in this scan: govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
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 15 findings across every scanner that examined this package.
Not reviewed is not the same as clean. Those 2 findings stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity, as they would have without this review.
Two keys had to turn. The model had to name a reason from a fixed list of six, and a deterministic check of ours — over which files this artifact actually installs — had to independently agree. Anything it could not corroborate is in “not reviewed” above, at full severity.
6 CI or editor configuration — The match is in build, CI or editor configuration, confirmed by our own check to be outside the installed artifact.
Rules: AAK-GHA-IMMUTABLE-001 · Files: .github/workflows/ci.yml, .github/workflows/publish-images.yml · reported by agent-audit-kit
2 Documentation or example — The match is in documentation or sample code, confirmed by our own check to be outside the installed artifact.
Rules: SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE · Files: /repo/docs/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
The model could have called any of these a false positive and did not.
3 AAK-LEGAL-002
Files: package.json, packages/sdk/package.json, packages/web/package.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
2 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE · Files: /repo/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical findings indicate sensitive data in i18n files.
The artifact contains critical findings from the 'bearer' scanner. These findings are located in internationalization files, specifically `/repo/packages/web/src/i18n/en.ts` and `/repo/packages/web/src/i18n/zh.ts`. This indicates the presence of sensitive data within the installed code, which could lead to credential access or exposure of other sensitive information.
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.