by mmartoccia · AI Tool · ★ 34
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 | 34 |
| Forks | 2 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | AI Tool |
| Quality Score | 67/100 |
| Open Issues | 2 |
| Last Updated | 2026-04-29 |
| Created | 2026-03-04 |
| Platforms | python |
| Est. Tokens | ~11k |
Anti-slop linter for AI-assisted codebases
Looking for a grain alternative? If you're comparing grain with other ai tool tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Static analysis for AI agent configs, tool descriptions, and system prompts — catches vague tool descriptions,
Stop shipping AI slop. Detects empty functions, fake documentation, and inflated comments in AI-generated code
AI-powered code quality analysis using MCP to help AI assistants review code more effectively. Analyze git cha
The code quality toolkit for the agentic AI era. Find dead code, clones, and scaffolding across 15 languages.
CLI tool that generates commit messages from git changes, reviews code for quality issues, and provides debugg
Comprehensive MCP server providing real-time framework documentation access for Claude Code with intelligent c
Explore other popular ai tool 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: