SKILLEMALL.ai

AC agent-superpowers

Your agent says 'done' — but did it check? Superpowers turns any OpenClaw agent into a disciplined engineer. Verification iron law (evidence before claims), three-agent code review (build → verify spec → verify quality), systematic debugging (4-phase root cause, three-strike rule), brainstorming gates (design before code), and anti-over-engineering rules. Use when: (1) coding tasks of any complexity, (2) debugging failures, (3) about to claim work is complete, (4) spawning sub-agents, (5) planning features, (6) reviewing code. Inspired by top coding agent methodologies, adapted for OpenClaw multi-agent architecture.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Oscar Serra v1.1.1 MIT-0 7 files body ≈ 3 074 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerAI and agentsSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
56/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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: 7. 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 56/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 18 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (read, git) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Failures and branches. 5 branches
    • 100Steps. 75 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3074 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 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

    • +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 623: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 27 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 75 items
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (5 of 5)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a documentation-only engineering methodology skill, with one questionable suggestion about inspecting another product's binary for embedded prompts.
    LLM: benign (medium) · VirusTotal: · 6 Jun 2026