SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC tao-train-single-step

Standard single-step train/eval/export workflow for any TAO model. Use when training a TAO model on a dataset without iterative data augmentation, AutoML, or DEFT loops. Trigger phrases include "single train run", "train then evaluate then export", "plain TAO training", "normal training", "no AutoML", "skip the loop". Routes through the per-model SKILL.md for action specifics and through `tao-launch-workflow` for platform/credentials/dataset intake.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: NVIDIA 1 file body ≈ 920 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 4 d ago

Standard single-step train/eval/export workflow for any TAO model.

As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches

ProcedureAI and agentstype 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
A
91/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
86
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
61/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

What is at stake

Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.

Broad scope medium severity

Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.

If you install

The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.

For the author

Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.

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
    • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
      Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash
      allowed-tools: Read Bash Write

    Files scanned: 1. 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 61/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 11 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 920 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • low The response is described with custom markup (5 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 453: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 6 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 items
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.