SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC multi-step-workflow

Professional SOP with Machine-Gated Planning, Native-CLI Config, and Audit-Hardened Private Sandbox Storage.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: chyern v4.4.5 MIT-0 9 files body ≈ 820 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

IntegrationInfrastructuretype 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
B
84/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
59
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
30
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: 9. 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")
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "homepage"
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "repository"
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "requires"

Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 65Failures and branches. 3 branches
  • 85Steps. 8 steps, 2 vague phrases
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 820 tokens
  • low The response is described with custom markup (6 tags): a typed call is more reliable

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)
  • +3Description length 108: 120–800 characters recommended
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +4No input/output examples
  • -31 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +4Structure: 11 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 59.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This workflow skill is mostly coherent, but it can persist sensitive task context and falsely report that snapshots were cleared while keeping the data on disk.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026