SKILLEMALL.ai

AB grpc-test-automation

Complete gRPC test automation for embedded devices with C/C++ SDK. Input: requirements.md + SDK (C/C++ headers and libraries) Output: Test framework + JMX + Excel report Workflow: 1. Analyze SDK headers → Design gRPC interfaces 2. Write C++ gRPC server (wraps SDK) + Proto definition 3. Compile server → Generate proto descriptor 4. Create JMeter JMX test plan 5. Simulate serial communication → Mount resources to board 6. Board starts gRPC service 7. JMeter executes tests 8. Generate Excel report Triggers: "grpc test", "板端测试", "协议测试", "SDK测试", "嵌入式测试", "create test framework", "generate jmx", "串口测试"

ClawHub Agent Skills author: ventus-Z v1.0.0 MIT-0 13 files · 1 script body ≈ 1 796 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice

IntegrationData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
67/100
Nearly there
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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 · 0

✓ No critical or high findings

Files scanned: 13. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")

Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100

  • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Steps. 9 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1796 tokens

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

  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • -32 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
  • +3Description length 607: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 17 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 9 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
  • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 8)

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

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This appears to be a legitimate embedded gRPC testing skill, but it needs review because it documents unauthenticated board control, remote upload/execution, shutdown, plaintext network services, and automatic package installation.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: benign · 28 May 2026