SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB rfc-writer

Draft a technical Request for Comments (RFC) or technical proposal document based on a rough idea or scattered requirements. Triggers when the user asks to write an RFC, draft a technical proposal, or structure an architecture design.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Xudong Guo v1.0.0 MIT-0 4 files body ≈ 913 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 3 d ago

As a process B 78/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting

GeneratorInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
82
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
78/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
30
Result and completion w 14
60
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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: 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 78/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Failures and branches. 6 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 8 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 913 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • medium 2 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"

    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)
    • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 234: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 6 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a text-only RFC drafting assistant with no code execution, credential use, or hidden persistence; its only notable issue is somewhat broad activation wording.
    LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026