SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB onboarding-cro

When the user wants to optimize post-signup onboarding, user activation, first-run experience, or time-to-value. Also use when the user mentions "onboarding flow," "activation rate," "user activation," "first-run experience," "empty states," "onboarding checklist," "aha moment," or "new user experience." For signup/registration optimization, see signup-flow-cro. For ongoing email sequences, see email-sequence.

sundial-org/awesome-openclaw-skills Agent Skills author: sundial-org 1 file body ≈ 2 705 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

When the user wants to optimize post-signup onboarding, user activation, first-run experience, or time-to-value.

As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice

AnalyzerData and analyticsCommercePersonal productivitytype 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
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
65/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
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: onboarding-cro (LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills)

How to improve

    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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    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 65/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 30Running it twice. 13 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 85Steps. 217 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2705 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low 13 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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 8 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 413: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 45 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 217 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.