SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BD ClawCode Lens

Explain code in any language with structured syntax/logic breakdown, local security scan, and improvement suggestions. 100% lokal — private og hurtig, ingen netværkskald, ingen API-nøgle.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Northcap Group v1.0.14 MIT-0 6 files body ≈ 476 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Explain code in any language with structured syntax/logic breakdown, local security scan, and improvement suggestions.

As a process D 38/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

IntegrationSoftware developmenttype 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
88/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
69
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
38/100
Unfinished process
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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 · 0

✓ No critical or high findings

Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning name-format name should be kebab-case (lowercase letters, digits, hyphens)
  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "slug"

Process rating: all ten parameters 38/100

  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
  • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (ClawCode Lens) differs from the folder (clawcode-lens)
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 75Steps. 3 steps
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 476 tokens

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
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 187: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 11 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 3 items
  • +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
  • +3All 3 scripts are documented

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
The local code-analysis tools are mostly straightforward, but the skill makes strong no-network privacy claims while also documenting a paid deep scan that uploads source code externally.
LLM: suspicious (high) · 21 Aug 2026