by cm2435 · LLM Plugin · ★ 11
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.
| Stars | 11 |
| Forks | 2 |
| Language | Rust |
| Category | LLM Plugin |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 74/100 |
| Last Updated | 2026-07-29 |
| Created | 2026-04-06 |
| Platforms | python, rust |
| Est. Tokens | ~18k |
Fast Python linter for catching LLM-generated anti-patterns. Written in Rust, built on tree-sitter.
Looking for a slopcop alternative? If you're comparing slopcop with other llm plugin tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
The code quality toolkit for the agentic AI era. Find dead code, clones, and scaffolding across 15 languages.
AI-powered code quality analysis using MCP to help AI assistants review code more effectively. Analyze git cha
MCP server for YouTube — search videos, get transcripts, channels, and playlists. Works with Claude, Cursor &
Governance-first orchestration for Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI — parallel workers, receipts, quality ga
Cross-language-safe code-intelligence MCP for AI agents: 13 languages, family-gated call graph, blast radius,
Automated loop driver, slash commands, council automation, MCP browser bridge, and portfolio governance for Cl
Explore other popular llm plugin tools:
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: