by trungdq88 · AI Tool · ★ 116
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.
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 | 116 |
| Forks | 16 |
| Language | JavaScript |
| Category | AI Tool |
| Quality Score | 59/100 |
| Open Issues | 2 |
| Last Updated | 2026-09-18 |
| Created | 2026-09-17 |
| Platforms | node |
| Est. Tokens | ~15k |
Sponsor Skip Skips sponsor reads on YouTube. A Chrome extension finds each read with Jev (TypeSafe's System One model) and jumps past it while you watch; a small web app does the same for a pasted link. Code owns every timestamp: Jev only ever names a transcript line or answers yes/no about what it heard. You need a TypeSafe API key.
These tools work well together with youtube-sponsor-detection for enhanced workflows:
Looking for a youtube-sponsor-detection alternative? If you're comparing youtube-sponsor-detection with other ai tool tools, these 4 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
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: