[bobdivx]

🚨 Severity: HIGH
💡 Vulnerability: Command blocklist bypass via trailing spaces. The system relies on string checking (e.g., contains("rm ")) which fails if the sensitive token is the last word in the command string without trailing spaces.
🎯 Impact: Malicious users could execute explicitly forbidden commands by padding or placing them strategically at the end of the argument string.
🔧 Fix: Keep the joined string substring check to preserve existing functionality (e.g., matching multi-word phrases), but additionally loop through individual shell-split tokens and enforce an exact match specifically for rm to prevent trailing space bypasses.
✅ Verification: Ran cargo test on tools::workdir_cmd and added explicit internal tests validating that rm is successfully blocked regardless of its position in the string.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 1219179541715606041 started by @bobdivx

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[bobdivx]

Closing: false alarm / overlaps #283 and previously closed #291. rm is not in ALLOWED_BINS, so a bare rm never runs; npm run rm would invoke an npm script name, not the rm binary. The trailing-space contains("rm ") check is intentional to avoid false positives (e.g. farm). Prefer deciding the broader workdir_cmd validation rewrite on #283 rather than stacking another partial patch here.