SKILLEMALL.ai

AC workspace-guard

Workspace boundary enforcement and file operation safety checks. Use before ANY file operation (read, write, edit, exec, delete) to: (1) Validate paths are within ~/openclaw workspace, (2) Confirm user permission for sensitive operations, (3) Check file operation safety, (4) Prevent unauthorized access outside workspace boundaries, or (5) Audit file access patterns.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: dougchambers v1.0.0 MIT-0 3 files body ≈ 837 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
91/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
96
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
58/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
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 · 4

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 4
    • low Dangerous commands cmd-destructive-fs references/boundaries.md:124
      Destructive filesystem command (wipes root/home/drive) (negated — the text forbids it)
      - `:(){ :|:& };:` - Fork bomb
      negated
    • low Dangerous commands cmd-privilege references/boundaries.md:125
      Privilege escalation / world-writable permissions (negated — the text forbids it)
      - `chmod 777 /` - Open all permissions
      negated
    • low Dangerous commands cmd-destructive-fs-scoped references/boundaries.md:126
      Destructive command on a partition / current directory (normal in admin docs; verify the target) (negated — the text forbids it)
      - `dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda` - Disk wipe
      negated

    A further 1 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.

    Files scanned: 3. 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 58/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 29 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 837 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    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)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 368: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
    • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This safety-focused workspace guard is not malicious, but it needs review because its own reference guidance includes an unsafe path-expansion example and inconsistent audit-log storage.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026