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 -- jsonshema_mcp
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
4 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.
v2.0.11
3 findings · 7.5s
v0.3.74
7 findings · 1.8s
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 ·n/a: not applicablecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral: completenerlo-install-instruction: completecapslock ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-multi-source ·n/a: not applicable | rejected |
Per-scanner history:
v0.1.0
0 findings · 3.4s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 3.4s
v1.4.0
None of the entry points this scanner reads were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 0.2s
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 · 1.0s
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 10 findings across every scanner that examined this package.
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 AAK-LOGINJ-001
Files: mcp_server.py · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-ANTHROPIC-SDK-001
Files: mcp_server.py · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-IPI-WILD-CORPUS-001
Files: utils/DatabaseService.py · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-MCP-SDK-CVE-2026-52869-001
Files: requirements.txt · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-OAUTH-3P-001
Files: requirements.txt · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 AAK-SUPPLY-004
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
3 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: TOOL_ABUSE_UNDECLARED_NETWORK, SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, MANIFEST_MISSING_LICENSE · Files: /repo/repo/README.md, /repo/SKILL.md · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical database finding and high-risk SDK usage detected
A critical finding exists in `/repo/utils/DatabaseService.py`, indicating a significant security concern. High-severity findings include the use of an Anthropic SDK in `mcp_server.py`, a vulnerable MCP SDK in `requirements.txt`, and an IPI Wild Corpus in `utils/DatabaseService.py`. Additionally, multiple high-severity findings are present in `/repo/utils/DataManager.py`, suggesting potential data handling risks. Medium-severity findings point to potential network egress and third-party OAuth integration.
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.