AB knods
Build and modify Knods visual AI workflows using either the OpenClaw Gateway polling protocol or the Knods headless flows API. Use for Knods polling payloads with fields like messageId/message/history, or for direct flow discovery/execution tasks like listing flows, reading input schemas, starting runs, polling status, cancelling runs, and retrieving outputs programmatically.
As a process B 74/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice
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 instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
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
-
medium Exfiltration
net-redirectable-api-keyscripts/knods_headless.py:39Helper sends the API key to a host configured by an environment variable — the key can be redirected to another serverAPI key + configurable base URL from environment
-
medium Exfiltration
net-redirectable-api-keyscripts/knods_iris_bridge.py:197Helper sends the API key to a host configured by an environment variable — the key can be redirected to another serverAPI key + configurable base URL from environment
Files scanned: 8. 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 74/100
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 133 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2673 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 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)
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 378: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 133 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.