SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB board-meeting

Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:board, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.

LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills Agent Skills author: LeoYeAI MIT 5 files body ≈ 1 162 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions.

As a process B 70/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
70/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: board-meeting (LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills)

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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 5. 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 70/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 85Steps. 25 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1162 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    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)
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 399: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 13 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.