by tonbistudio · AI Tool · ★ 265
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 | 265 |
| Forks | 80 |
| Category | AI Tool |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 62/100 |
| Last Updated | 2026-06-19 |
| Created | 2026-04-08 |
| Est. Tokens | ~2k |
LLM Wiki An open-source template for building LLM-powered knowledge bases, following Andrej Karpathy's "LLM Wiki" pattern. You provide raw sources. The LLM reads them, writes structured wiki pages, cross-links everything, and maintains it over time. You never edit the wiki directly — you curate sources and ask questions.
Looking for a llm-wiki alternative? If you're comparing llm-wiki 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.
A tool to make socks connections through HTTP agents
Open-source AI research assistant for biomedicine — chat to run RNA-seq, drug discovery, clinical analysis, an
SciToolAgent: A Knowledge Graph-Driven Scientific Agent for Multi-Tool Integration
Skip to content github / docs Code Issues 80 Pull requests 35 Discussions Actions Projects 2 Security Insights
Skill to talk to Claude about your projects over the phone
.NET MAUI skills for GitHub Copilot and Claude Code
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: