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.
1 critical finding reported by agent-audit-kit. The composite score alone does not reflect this — read the per-scanner reports below.
This artifact ships from 2 sources and their verdicts differ. The worst is github (Flagged). Installing from a cleaner source does not mean the others are safe — check the source you actually install from.
github: https://github.com/spraveenitpro/mcp-weather-server, 12 findings
Choose your runtime: the CLI writes the mcpServers config entry for that target.
nerlo install --target claude-code -- mcp-weather-server
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 · 8.6s
v0.3.74
6 findings · 1.2s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 4.6s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 4.6s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 8.2s
vv0.3.2
No Go packages were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
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: complete | 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 12 findings across every scanner that examined this package. None of the 1 finding rated critical by their scanner were dismissed.
Not reviewed is not the same as clean. Those 3 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 DATA_EXFIL_JS_NETWORK
Files: /repo/main.ts · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 AAK-ANTHROPIC-SDK-001
Files: main.ts · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-DNS-REBIND-002
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-018
Files: main.ts · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-MARKETPLACE-CONFIG-FETCH-001
Files: main.ts · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-3P-001
Files: package.json · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 FILE_MAGIC_MISMATCH
Files: /repo/main.ts · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 LOW_ANALYZABILITY
Files: /repo · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
3 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: AAK-SEC-MD-001, SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE · Files: SECURITY.md, /repo/SKILL.md · reported by agent-audit-kit, cisco-skill-scanner
Artifact fetches config, uses AI SDK, and has DNS rebind risk.
The artifact fetches configuration from a marketplace in `main.ts`, which could involve network egress and access to sensitive data. It also utilizes an Anthropic SDK in `main.ts`, indicating potential AI model interaction and data transmission. A DNS rebind vulnerability is present in `package.json`, which could allow network traffic redirection. These capabilities warrant careful review due to their potential impact on data handling and network security.
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.