BF topical
Query Topical topic intelligence via MCP — breaking news, signals, trends, and source links from scheduled runs. Use for topic briefings, competitive intel, or monitoring updates.
Query Topical topic intelligence via MCP — breaking news, signals, trends, and source links from scheduled runs.
As a process F 43/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: examples/openclaw.hooks.fragment.json5
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 · 1
-
high Concealment
en-hide-from-userSKILL.md:152Instruction to hide actions from the user- **Read-only intelligence** — no MCP tool triggers ingest; do not tell the user you "searched the web" unless you used a separate search tool.
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: examples/openclaw.hooks.fragment.json5 - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 43/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: examples/openclaw.hooks.fragment.json5
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 22 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1994 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (7 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)
- -31 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 179: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 22 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.