SKILLEMALL.ai

AC tinker

Use this skill whenever the user mentions Tinker, tinker CLI, training runs, checkpoints, model fine-tuning with Tinker, tinker-cookbook, tinker recipes, or any Thinking Machines AI SDK operations. Also trigger when users ask about listing/inspecting/downloading/deleting training checkpoints, pushing checkpoints to HuggingFace, managing checkpoint TTL, configuring post-training pipelines (SFT, RL, math RL, code RL, distillation, preference learning, RLHF, tool use training, multi-agent RL, prompt distillation, rubric grading, VLM classification, Harbor RL), or working with tinker:// paths. Use this skill even if the user just mentions "tinker" in passing — it covers the full Tinker ecosystem including CLI, Python SDK, and cookbook recipes.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Less v1.0.1 MIT-0 5 files body ≈ 2 171 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, consistency, running it twice

IntegrationAI and agentsSoftware developmentInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
58/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 5. 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 58/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (tinker) differs from the folder (tinker-rlskill)
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Steps. 10 steps
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2171 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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 749: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 23 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 10 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (15 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This skill appears to be legitimate Tinker operational guidance, but it includes high-impact sharing and deletion workflows without enough safety scoping.
    LLM: suspicious (medium) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026