SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC total-recall

The only memory skill that watches on its own. No database. No vectors. No manual saves. Just an LLM observer that compresses your conversations into prioritised notes, consolidates when they grow, and recovers anything missed. Five layers of redundancy, zero maintenance. ~$0.10/month. While other memory skills ask you to remember to remember, this one just pays attention.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: gavdalf v1.5.1 28 files · 9 scripts body ≈ 3 128 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

ProcedureAI and agentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
89/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Dangerous commands cmd-cron-mention SKILL.md:300
      Mentions editing / listing crontab (quoted — discussed, not commanded)
      - Confirm cron is active: `crontab -l`
      quoted

    Files scanned: 28. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 53 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3128 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low 15 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
    • -43 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
    • -35 of 9 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 375: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 31 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 53 items
    • +4Has examples (10 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This skill has a coherent memory purpose, but it should be reviewed carefully because it persistently monitors conversation logs, sends them to LLM APIs, and includes broad workspace git operations that can affect unrelated files.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: suspicious · 27 May 2026