SKILLEMALL.ai

AC war-room

Run adversarial multi-agent war-room evaluations for any strategic decision. Spawns 5 parallel subagents (Analyst, Guardian, Treasurer, Builder, Strategist) to challenge a proposal from different angles, then synthesizes a GO/NO-GO/REWORK ruling. Use when: (1) evaluating proposals that need multi-perspective stress-testing, (2) making go/no-go decisions on investments, products, hires, or architecture, (3) any decision where adversarial challenge improves quality. Supports finance, product, engineering, and hiring domains. NOT for: simple questions, routine tasks, or decisions that do not need formal evaluation.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: scytheshan-pixel v1.1.0 5 files body ≈ 886 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, consistency

AnalyzerAI and agentsInfrastructurePeople and hiringtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Consistency w 8
40
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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 5. 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 54/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (war-room) differs from the folder (iris-war-room)
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (git) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Failures and branches. 4 branches
    • 100Steps. 24 steps
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 886 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    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
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 619: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 11 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill performs the advertised decision review, but it also tells agents to persist sensitive proposal details in files, memory, git, and logs without clear opt-in controls.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026