SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC clawsec-nanoclaw

Use when checking for security vulnerabilities in NanoClaw skills, before installing new skills, or when asked about security advisories affecting the bot

ClawHub Agent Skills author: davida-ps v0.0.10 MIT-0 23 files body ≈ 2 071 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 4 d ago

As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

ProcedureInfrastructureSecuritytype 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
91/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
80
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
59/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Secrets in code secret-high-entropy-token host-services/advisory-cache.ts:23
      High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)
      MCow…XJX+GYGv…m6A=
      quoted

    Files scanned: 22. 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 59/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 12 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2071 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    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
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
    • -42 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 154: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 20 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 12 items
    • +4Has examples (14 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This appears to be a genuine security skill, but it needs Review because agents can automatically restore or approve protected NanoClaw files and the docs do not consistently make that authority clear.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 23 Jun 2026