SKILLEMALL.ai
RU Sign in

BC war-room

Multi-agent research war room. Personas debate in sequential turns through two phases — ideation and proposal writing. Persona persistence and drift detection are enforced every turn via the persistent-persona skill.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Zhengxuan Wu v1.0.0 MIT-0 8 files body ≈ 1 895 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 2 d ago

As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerAI and agentsInfrastructuretype 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
B
88/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
70
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
53/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "type"
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "depends_on"

Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100

  • 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
  • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (war-room) differs from the folder (auto-research-proposal)
  • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
  • 100Steps. 37 steps
  • 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1895 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • low The response is described with custom markup (4 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 216: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 10 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 37 items
  • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)

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

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This skill is a coherent research-debate helper, but it automatically launches a local monitor process and persistently records detailed session data without enough user control.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026