SKILLEMALL.ai

BC china-im-workflow-cli

Orchestrate cross-platform IM workflows using Feishu CLI, DingTalk CLI, and WeCom CLI. Teach AI agents how to combine lark-cli (200+ commands), dws (DingTalk Workspace CLI), and wecom-cli to automate reporting, task management, notifications, and marketing across China's three major enterprise IM platforms. Covers: auto-send weekly reports via Feishu, sync tasks between DingTalk and WeCom, cross-platform notification broadcasting, marketing content distribution to all three platforms simultaneously. Triggers on: 飞书CLI工作流, 钉钉CLI自动化, 企微CLI集成, 跨平台IM, IM workflow automation, Feishu DingTalk WeCom CLI orchestration, 中国企业IM自动化, agent CLI workflow, multi-platform notification, 跨平台周报, 多平台消息分发

ClawHub Agent Skills author: lm203688 v1.0.0 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 2 171 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting

IntegrationGitHubData and analyticsAI and agentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
B
87/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
67
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
63/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
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: 2. 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")

Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100

  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
  • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 100Steps. 31 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2171 tokens
  • 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
  • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 693: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 17 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
  • +4Has examples (9 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This skill is coherent and not malware, but it teaches an agent to send, broadcast, and create business items across multiple enterprise messaging platforms without strong confirmation boundaries.
LLM: suspicious (high) · 28 May 2026