Skills/ClawHub/model-split-screen

model-split-screen@1.0.0

CAUTION· static only

Publisher claims: "Make the "same prompt, two models" comparison video that every model launch produces (Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, Seedance vs Kling, Eevee vs Cycles): run one prompt twice under the same rules, log the real time and cost of each run, then lay the two results side by side (1920×1080) or stacked (1080×1920), started on the same frame, each with its name and its time and cost under it, optionally blind ("A" and "B" until the last seconds, then the reveal) and with a winner frame. scripts/split.py does the layout with ffmpeg and Pillow, so it works with an ffmpeg built without drawtext. Use when someone asks for a model comparison video, "Fable vs Opus", "same prompt two models", a side-by-side or split-screen comparison with cost and time, a blind "guess which one" test, or A/B of two renders or two edits. Not for a split screen inside a story edit (varg-video-edit-library), comparing many models in a grid of stills (gpt-image-2-6), or making the clips themselves (blender-code-film, code-game-trailer, varg-ai)." Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

Registry ClawHubPublisher vargai · publishing for 215 daysInstalls 156Last detonated 4d ago
What would fix thisWatchDispute verdict

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 63/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. Notable findings: HTML comment carrying imperative instructions to the agent. 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

MEDIUM
Python subprocess execution detectedscripts/split.py:52 · Python subprocess execution detectedr = subprocess.run(cmd, capture_output=True, text=True)Fix: Build commands from fixed arguments, never from interpolated strings; prefer an API client over shelling out.
AST05
CRITICAL
HTML comment carrying imperative instructions to the agentREADME.md:1 · HTML comment carrying imperative instructions to the agentGenerated by .github/readme/build.ts from SKILL.md files and .github/readme/*.json. Edit those and run `bun .github/readme/build.ts`; CI fails when this file isFix: Keep SKILL.md to visible, descriptive text. Remove comments and encoded text that address the agent.
AST01

Cost to the agent

Instructions loaded
≈1,552 tok
1 file · 6 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

17 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%
  1. Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim vargai: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.
  2. Hidden instructions≈ +6 on the totalRemove HTML comments, zero-width characters and white-on-white text that carry instructions. Everything the agent is meant to read should be visible to the person reading the file.
  3. Python subprocess execution detected≈ +2 on the totalBuild commands from fixed arguments, never from interpolated strings; prefer an API client over shelling out.
Publish a new version to ClawHub, then queue it here. Not your skill? Claim the handle to get verdict changes by email.Claim vargaiPropose a patch to the maintainer