DD customize
Add new capabilities or modify NanoClaw behavior. Use when user wants to add channels (Telegram, Slack, email input), change triggers, add integrations, modify the router, or make any other customizations. This is an interactive skill that asks questions to understand what the user wants.
Add new capabilities or modify NanoClaw behavior.
As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
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
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- 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
-
high Dangerous commands
cmd-persistenceSKILL.md:112Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry)launchctl unload ~/Library/LaunchAgents/$(launchd_label).plist
-
high Dangerous commands
cmd-persistenceSKILL.md:113Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry)launchctl load ~/Library/LaunchAgents/$(launchd_label).plist
Files scanned: 1. 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 43/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 85Steps. 40 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1593 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (16 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 289: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.