AC claw-security-self-check
Perform a strict, evidence-based, read-only security assessment of the current OpenClaw host, review each NOT_TESTED item through targeted OpenClaw Agent investigation, and merge structured review evidence into a formal audit report. Also use this Skill to generate reports offline from existing baseline JSON and manual-review JSON files.
Perform a strict, evidence-based, read-only security assessment of the current OpenClaw host, review each NOTTESTED item through targeted OpenClaw Agent…
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/check-matrix.md:24Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- `PASS` means that observable effective configuration and runtime state meet the check requirements. It does not mean that penetration testing was performed.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/evidence-rules.md:43Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- `PASS` means only that the observed configuration and state comply. It does not mean that penetration testing or behavioral bypass testing was performed.
Files scanned: 10. 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 62/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 65Failures and branches. 3 branches
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 40 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1651 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 339: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.