BC clawd-zero-trust
Zero Trust security hardening for OpenClaw deployments. Use when asked to audit, harden, or apply Zero Trust architecture to an OpenClaw instance — including NHI identity scoping, Principle of Least Privilege (PLP), Plan-First protocol, DNS-based egress filtering, plugin allowlisting, and SSH/network lockdown. Also triggers on security audit requests, vulnerability analysis, SecureClaw installation, firewall hardening, and post-deployment security reviews.
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-privilegescripts/whitelist.sh:29Privilege escalation / world-writable permissionssudo bash "$FILTER_SCRIPT" --apply --force
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/false-positives.md:16Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- `[env-harvesting]` Credential harvesting patterns
Files scanned: 18. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 21 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2072 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
- -31 of 9 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 460: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.