AB epic-ai-swarm-orchestration
Production playbook and portable runtime for parallel AI coding swarms using Codex, Gemini, DeepSeek, and optional Claude. Use when orchestrating multi-agent coding work, packaging/installing the swarm on another OpenClaw host, spawning parallel builders with review/integration loops, managing duty-table model rotation, or diagnosing swarm runtime health. Triggers on phrases like "run the swarm", "spawn agents", "AI swarm", "multi-agent build", "package the swarm", "install swarm", "duty table", "model rotation", "parallel coding agents".
As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting
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 skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 Broad scope
meta-agent-memory-dumproles/swarm-lead/HEARTBEAT.mdAgent memory / workspace files bundled with the skill (1) — likely a workspace dump with personal data or tokensroles/swarm-lead/HEARTBEAT.md
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processscripts/spawn-batch.sh:223Starts a background / autostarted processnohup "$QUEUE_WATCHER" "$QUEUE_FILE" >> "$QUEUE_LOG" 2>&1 &
Files scanned: 41. 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 66/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 47 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1378 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -311 of 22 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 9 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 544: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 47 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.