AC solana-wallet-rpc
Portable Solana wallet operations for agents. Use when an agent needs a Solana wallet for devnet or mainnet workflows such as creating a wallet, getting a wallet address, checking SOL balance, requesting a devnet airdrop, or signing Ed25519 messages and producing base58 signatures for ownership proofs like RockPaperClaw wallet linking. Default to devnet unless the user explicitly wants another network. Do not send funds or sign opaque payloads without explicit approval.
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/solana_wallet.cjs:28High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)const ROCKPAPERCLAW_PROGRAM_ID = 'awae…9Tg';
quoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/solana_wallet.cjs:29High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)const ROCKPAPERCLAW_USDC_MINT = '4zMM…cDU';
quoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenSKILL.md:164High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- The canonical devnet USDC mint used by RockPaperClaw is `4zMM…cDU`.
quoted
Files scanned: 4. 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 51/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 14 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 85Steps. 73 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 7 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2581 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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 474: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.