Who do you have to describe the robot for? Is it an essentially humanoid design, or has it been designed for a specific task? (A lot of the robots I have met have had wheels; bipedal locomotion uses up too much calculating power and sensory information)
From the present start of your description this seems a fairly crude mechanism with apparent servo motors and hydraulic cylinders; I can see no reason to use a anthropoid template.
The description itself needs a lot of work, and not only grammatically; I would suggest you get a clear idea of this mechanism in your head (I'm afraid I'm too old to have met transformers) and, rather than trying to describe every linkage, coupling and gear chain give us an idea of what's special about it. After all, we all know what robots look like by now; Hollywood and the pulps have been showing us since the thirties.
An exoskeleton is the structural strength on the outside, like the chassisless, matchbox Mini, or a beetle; an insect beetle, that is, not a VW, which has a chassis. So it can't sit within a torso; that would make it an endoskeleton, like a human (who also has a chassis.)
So, when this thing walks/rolls into the corridor, what's your first impression? A lot of smooth, shiny metal parts sliding silently over each other, power and precision? A slightly clunky, clumsy, even humorous machine, forever compensating for it's own movements, a metallic Frankenstein's monster? Built for the military, camouflage painted, the ultimate overarmed grunt, designed to look menacing and indestructible?
Or one of Asimov's breed, distinguishable from a human by its colouration and weight, copying human locomotion as well as form, capable of taking any job a homo-sapiens might choose to give up?
Your archetype robots have spread worldwide from RUR; two clues and you've defined them for a modern audience. Now all you need to define is in what way yours are different from everyone else's.
