Skills/ClawHub/doc-example-reproducibility-check

doc-example-reproducibility-check@1.0.0

CAUTION· static only

Publisher claims: "Verify that example commands and their documented outputs in a technical document, tutorial, README, or skill package are actually reproducible. Use this when a doc contains runnable command examples, before publishing a doc or package whose examples must be trustworthy, when you need to change sample data inside a document (e.g. de-identify real birth dates, account numbers, or customer names) without introducing false claims, or when a document claims a script emits specific fields/values and you need to confirm it does. Covers: extracting every runnable example, separating mutable sample data from immutable factual tables, re-deriving every claimed value by actually running the tool instead of computing it by hand, bulk replacement with a change-count audit trail, and a per-example PASS/FAIL regression run. Trigger phrases: 'verify the examples in this doc', 'are these commands still correct', 'check the doc examples', 'replace the sample data in the docs', 'the docs claim X, does it really output X'." Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

Registry ClawHubPublisher haiyangchenbj · publishing for 26 daysInstalls 29Last detonated 3d ago

Coverage

Static only; nothing was run yet.

The label rests on the code, the instruction files and the publisher. The honeypot run replaces this verdict when it completes.

Is [email protected] safe to install?

KillerSkills analysed it statically (a sandbox run is pending) on 2026-11-11 and scored it 70/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

Behavior trace

Queued for honeypot run · static analysis only
t+CategoryObserved action

This version has not been detonated yet. The score above counts behavior as unknown (50/100), so it cannot read Verified until the honeypot run completes and replaces this verdict.

Static findings

No findings across 144 lines in 2 files.

Cost to the agent

Instructions loaded
≈932 tok
1 file · 2 in bundle

Tokens estimated at four characters each. Skills load their instruction text when triggered; the figure is what that costs.

Known vulnerabilities

Vulnerability advisories (OSV) cover npm and PyPI packages; this registry has no advisory database.

What would make this Verified

10 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%
  1. Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim haiyangchenbj: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.
Publish a new version to ClawHub, then queue it here. Not your skill? Claim the handle to get verdict changes by email.Claim haiyangchenbjPropose a patch to the maintainer