AC agent-swarm-orchestrator
Orchestrate OpenClaw Agent Swarm workflows for multi-project coding automation with Obsidian task intake, Claude coding, Codex review, GitLab MR flow, merge+sync, and done-status closure.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting
ProcedureObsidianGitLabSoftware developmentAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
How to improve
- 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: 13. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 33 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1808 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 187: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 24 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
- +3All 11 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This is a disclosed automation skill, but it can autonomously edit, push, create, and merge code with broad local and account-level authority.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026