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 -- pdf2ocr
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
8 findings · 7.3s
v0.3.74
2 findings · 2.1s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 2.9s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 2.9s
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 · 0.9s
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 ·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 |
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 4 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.
1 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/python-publish.yml · reported by agent-audit-kit
1 Test or fixture file — The match is in a test or fixture. Our own check confirmed the file is not part of what gets installed.
Rules: UNANALYZABLE_BINARY · Files: /repo/tests/data/sample.pdf · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
The model could have called any of these a false positive and did not.
3 TOOL_ABUSE_SYSTEM_PACKAGE_INSTALL
Files: /repo/pdf2ocr/converters/epub.py, /repo/pdf2ocr/ocr.py · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
1 AAK-SUPPLY-004
Files: pyproject.toml · reported by agent-audit-kit
4 The model called these false positives and our own check did not agree, so the dismissal was refused.
Rules: FILE_MAGIC_MISMATCH, SOCIAL_ENG_VAGUE_DESCRIPTION, HIDDEN_DATA_FILE and 1 more · Files: /repo/requirements-dev.txt, /repo/SKILL.md, /repo/.claudecode.json · reported by cisco-skill-scanner
Critical findings in data converters and configuration
The artifact contains critical findings related to sensitive data handling within its `epub.py` and `pdf.py` converters. High severity findings also indicate potential data exposure or insecure operations in `config.py` and other converter files. Medium severity findings point to system package installation capabilities and potential credential access. These findings collectively suggest the artifact can perform network egress, file writes, and access credentials.
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.