SKILLEMALL.ai

AD claude-authenticity

Detect whether an API endpoint is backed by genuine Claude (not a wrapper, proxy, or impersonator) using 9 weighted rule-based checks that mirror the claude-verify project. Also extracts injected system prompts from providers that override Claude's identity. Fully self-contained — copy the code below and run, no extra packages beyond httpx. Use when the user wants to verify a Claude API key or endpoint, check if a third-party Claude service is authentic, audit API providers for Claude authenticity, test multiple models in parallel, or discover what system prompt a provider has injected.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: helloml0326 v1.0.0 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 4 863 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: steps, result and completion, inputs and preconditions

IntegrationAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
43/100
Unfinished process
Steps w 15
0
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1

    ✓ Guard found no suspicious behaviour. 1 matches are attack strings quoted in this security skill's own documentation.

    Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 43/100

    • 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4863 tokens
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3No numbered steps or checklist
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 593: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 12 headings
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This skill is user-directed and not malware-like, but it includes an optional workflow for extracting hidden provider prompts and lacks adequate authorization and sensitive-data warnings.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: suspicious · 28 May 2026