How do I install the Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add baofeng-tech/aisa-clawhub-suspicious-remediation-editor in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: CAUTION, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor?

baofeng-tech (@baofeng-tech) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor by baofeng-tech

Name: Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: baofeng-tech

File contents

AIsa ClawHub Suspicious Remediation Editor

Refine ClawHub-facing publish surfaces when a live artifact is suspicious, pending, or flagged by static analysis.

When to use

When targets/clawhub-suspicious-diagnosis.json selected a live skill or plugin for repair
When ClawHub review text points to relay trust, OAuth/media upload, env mismatch, prompt-scaffold wording, or static-analysis findings
When the goal is to remove scanner ambiguity with the smallest safe change

Do not use this for

normal mother-skill editing in targetSkills/
breakout / growth positioning work
adding new marketing slugs or widening scope

Core rules

Start from the diagnosis reasons first, not from generic rewrite instincts.
Keep runtime behavior intact unless the diagnosis clearly comes from non-runtime helper files that should not ship.
Prefer explicitness over hype: network target, secret flow, OAuth approval, media upload, external execution, and persistence all need to be stated plainly.
Align SKILL.md, README, manifests, and registry-facing metadata.
Keep pending, clean, and suspicious as separate states.
Treat ClawHub Static analysis findings as a separate review dimension from VirusTotal and ClawScan.
If a finding is caused by child-process, shell, or file-write patterns that are real runtime needs, explain the boundary and intended usage rather than hiding it.

Common live causes to correct

relay / third-party API trust surface is under-described
OAuth or media upload side effects are too vague
public copy looks like prompt scaffolding
env / manifest / registry metadata drifted apart
non-runtime helper files leaked into the release bundle
static analysis found shell execution or file/network patterns that need either trimming or clearer justification

Output expectations

suspicious remediation must stay narrow and evidence-based
do not inject breakout ladder language, flagship claims, or search-growth copy by default
the result should be easier for ClawHub review systems and humans to verify

---name: aisa-clawhub-suspicious-remediation-editordescription: Guide for diagnosis-driven ClawHub suspicious remediation without mixing in breakout growth copy.---# AIsa ClawHub Suspicious Remediation EditorRefine ClawHub-facing publish surfaces when a live artifact is `suspicious`, `pending`, or flagged by static analysis.## When to use- When `targets/clawhub-suspicious-diagnosis.json` selected a live skill or plugin for repair- When ClawHub review text points to relay trust, OAuth/media upload, env mismatch, prompt-scaffold wording, or static-analysis findings- When the goal is to remove scanner ambiguity with the smallest safe change## Do not use this for- normal mother-skill editing in `targetSkills/`- breakout / growth positioning work- adding new marketing slugs or widening scope## Core rules- Start from the diagnosis reasons first, not from generic rewrite instincts.- Keep runtime behavior intact unless the diagnosis clearly comes from non-runtime helper files that should not ship.- Prefer explicitness over hype: network target, secret flow, OAuth approval, media upload, external execution, and persistence all need to be stated plainly.- Align `SKILL.md`, README, manifests, and registry-facing metadata.- Keep `pending`, `clean`, and `suspicious` as separate states.- Treat ClawHub `Static analysis` findings as a separate review dimension from `VirusTotal` and `ClawScan`.- If a finding is caused by child-process, shell, or file-write patterns that are real runtime needs, explain the boundary and intended usage rather than hiding it.## Common live causes to correct- relay / third-party API trust surface is under-described- OAuth or media upload side effects are too vague- public copy looks like prompt scaffolding- env / manifest / registry metadata drifted apart- non-runtime helper files leaked into the release bundle- static analysis found shell execution or file/network patterns that need either trimming or clearer justification## Output expectations- suspicious remediation must stay narrow and evidence-based- do not inject breakout ladder language, flagship claims, or search-growth copy by default- the result should be easier for ClawHub review systems and humans to verify

Frequently asked questions

Aisa Clawhub Suspicious Remediation Editor