Meta: Trusted Claude Skills + Skill Reviewers
This is the meta page: not the skills themselves, but who reviews and vouches for them, plus the skill registries / discovery surfaces that exist as of April 2026. Use this as the starting node in a "who do I trust" graph for Claude Code skills.
See also Trusted Claude Skills for the actual catalog, and Curation & Trust Networks for the broader pattern.
Tier 1 — Authoritative
| Source | What | Why trust |
|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Engineering blog | Original Skills design + threat model | Defines the spec, knows what it's trying to constrain |
anthropics/skills |
Official skill repo | First-party. Default-trust. |
| agentskills.io | Open standard, spec docs | Maintained as the public spec entry point |
Tier 2 — Security-vetting registries
| Source | Vetting model | Caveats |
|---|---|---|
| Skills Directory | Every skill scanned for malware, prompt injection, credential theft | Static scanning misses behavioral risk |
| Tech Leads Club agent-skills | "Verified, tested, safe"; published the 13% malicious finding | Smaller catalog; opinionated curation |
| SkillHub | AI-evaluated on 5 dims; S-rank (9.0+) only | LLM-evaluated quality ≠ security audit. S-rank is signal, not proof. |
| LobeHub Skills | "Security-first" red-flag/permission/pattern checks | Self-reported standards |
Tier 3 — Discovery only (no vetting)
| Source | Notes |
|---|---|
| SkillsMP | Aggregates GitHub skills. Discovery surface; assume untrusted. |
| claudeskills.info | "140+ free open-source skills." No audit gate. |
| Random GitHub repos via search | Unaudited by definition |
Reviewers Jacob trusts personally
These are individuals / orgs whose endorsement of a skill carries weight:
- Anthropic Applied AI team — anything they ship in
anthropics/skills - Tech Leads Club — they actually published the malicious-skills audit data; signal that they've done the work
- (Add as discovered — open node)
Reviewers we are watching but not yet trusting blindly
- LobeHub — security-first claim is unverified; treat their "verified" badge as a soft signal
- SkillHub S-rank curators — quality dimension is well-defined but security is a separate axis
Empty seats — open invitations
- An independent academic security researcher publishing a regular Skill audit would be highly trusted. Doesn't appear to exist yet.
- A Mozilla-style open-foundation review board for skills. Doesn't exist yet.
- A community "reproducible audit" registry where multiple reviewers must concur on a skill's safety. Open opportunity.
Trust hierarchy (decision flow)
Need a skill?
└─ Available in anthropics/skills? ───────────────── ✅ use it
└─ Available + you wrote it? ────────────────────── ✅ use it
└─ Available + Tech Leads Club verified? ────────── ✅ use it (after personal read)
└─ Available in Skills Directory + SkillHub S-rank? ─ 🟡 use after sandbox test
└─ Random marketplace ──────────────────────────── 🔴 audit code, sandbox, then maybe
└─ Random GitHub link ──────────────────────────── 🔴🔴 default-deny
What this meta page should become
- A dynamic registry where each skill in Trusted Claude Skills links to which reviewer(s) blessed it and on which date
- A "trust chain" record per skill (who → who → who) so trust is transitive but auditable
- Comments / disputes from other WikiHub users about specific reviewers
That's the curation use case. See @jacobcole/curation-trust-network/index.