SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC openfunderse-participant

Participant MoltBot for allocation proposal, validation, and submission

ClawHub Agent Skills author: wiimdy v2.0.2 2 files body ≈ 2 315 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 5 d ago

Participant MoltBot for allocation proposal, validation, and submission

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting

AnalyzerTelegramSoftware developmenttype 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
C
85/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
65
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
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
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: openfunderse-participant (ClawHub)

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 · 1

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 1
  • low Exfiltration read-dotenv SKILL.md:83
    Reads a .env file
    set -a; source ~/.openclaw/workspace/.env.participant; set +a

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")
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 81, 214): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

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. 2 mutating operations with no state check
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, node) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 100Steps. 61 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2315 tokens
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
  • low The response is described with custom markup (3 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)
  • +3Description length 71: 120–800 characters recommended
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +4Structure: 11 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 61 items
  • +4Has examples (8 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This skill is not clearly malicious, but it needs review because it handles wallet keys, can mutate shared OpenClaw state, and documents broader financial actions than its allocation-only purpose suggests.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: suspicious · 10 Sept 2026