AC social-media-ops
Set up a complete multi-brand social media management team on OpenClaw. Scaffolds 7 specialized AI agents (Leader, Researcher, Content Strategist, Visual Designer, Operator, Engineer, Reviewer) in a star topology with persistent A2A sessions, 3-layer memory system, shared knowledge base, approval workflows, and brand isolation. Use when setting up a new social media operations team, adding the multi-agent framework to an existing OpenClaw instance, or when the user mentions social media management, multi-brand operations, or content team setup.
Set up a complete multi-brand social media management team on OpenClaw.
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, progress reporting
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 asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-agent-memory-dumpassets/workspace/HEARTBEAT.mdAgent memory / workspace files bundled with the skill (9) — likely a workspace dump with personal data or tokensassets/workspace/HEARTBEAT.md, assets/workspace/IDENTITY.md, assets/workspace/SOUL.md, assets/workspace-content/SOUL.md, assets/workspace-designer/SOUL.md
Files scanned: 43. 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 63/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 110 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3626 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 550: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 26 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 110 items
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.