Skill Reviewer Pro
Comprehensive skill review and validation for OpenClaw skills with scoring rubric, defect checklists, functional verification, optimization recommendations, and workflow validation.
Language Adaptation
IMPORTANT: Always respond in the same language as the user's request.
- If user asks in Chinese → respond in Chinese
- If user asks in English → respond in English
- If user asks in other languages → respond in that language
Auto-adapt to the user's language to ensure clear communication and better user experience.
Review: agent-builder-plus (Example)
Level 1: Format Validation ✅
package_skill.pyvalidation passed- YAML frontmatter valid
- File structure correct
Level 2: Writing Quality Assessment
Structure: ✅ Good (6/6)
- Clear frontmatter with name and description
- Well-organized body with workflow sections
- Progressive disclosure pattern used
Description: ✅ Strong (8/8)
- Starts with what skill does: "Build high-performing OpenClaw agents end-to-end."
- Includes trigger: "Use when you want to design a new agent..."
- Specific scope: mentions SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md, AGENTS.md, USER.md, HEARTBEAT.md
- Reasonable length
- Contains searchable keywords
Example Density: ⚠️ Low (1/3)
- SKILL.md has few code blocks
- Could benefit from more concrete examples
Organization: ✅ Good (6/6)
- Organized by workflow (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 → Phase 4)
- Logical flow from interview to generation to validation
- Sections are self-contained
Actionability: ✅ Good (10/10)
- Instructions are imperative
- Steps are ordered logically
- Guardrails checklist provided
- Acceptance tests included
Level 3: Functional Verification ❌ CRITICAL (0/20)
Problem: Generated AGENTS.md template does not match OpenClaw specifications
Missing from templates.md AGENTS.md:
- Session startup requirements (Read SOUL.md, USER.md, memory files)
- Memory workflow details (daily notes vs long-term)
- Group chat behavior guidelines (when to speak, when to stay silent)
- Heartbeat mechanism details (heartbeat vs cron, what to check)
- Tool usage guidelines (Skills provide tools, Voice storytelling, Platform formatting)
Impact: Skills created with agent-builder-plus will be missing critical OpenClaw agent behaviors.
Level 4: Best Practices Check ✅ Good (15/15)
Progressive Disclosure: ✅ Good (5/5)
- SKILL.md is concise
- Detailed information in references/
- References properly linked
Resource Organization: ✅ Good (5/5)
- Only necessary directories created
- No extraneous files
Triggering Accuracy: ✅ Good (5/5)
- Description clearly states when to use
- No "When to Use This Skill" in body
Level 5: Optimization Recommendations
🔴 Critical (Must Fix)
1. Fix AGENTS.md Template Functional Mismatch Update references/templates.md to include all required sections from actual OpenClaw AGENTS.md.
🟡 Major (Should Fix)
2. Add More Concrete Examples Add 3-5 concrete code examples in workflow sections.
3. Add Quick Start Section Add a "Quick Start" section at the beginning of SKILL.md.
Level 6: Workflow Validation ❌ CRITICAL (0/20)
Note: This level applies to workflow tools (skills that guide users through multi-step processes).
Workflow Completeness Check
WORKFLOW COMPLETENESS CHECK:
[ ] Each phase has clear operational steps
[ ] Correct CLI commands are used
[ ] Error handling is documented
[ ] Backup and recovery mechanisms exist
[ ] Verification steps are included
[ ] Configuration management is documented
[ ] Failure recovery strategies exist
agent-builder-plus Analysis:
| Check | Status | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Each phase has clear operational steps | ⚠️ Partial | Phase 2 only lists files, not creation commands |
| Correct CLI commands are used | ❌ Missing | No openclaw agents add command |
| Error handling is documented | ❌ Missing | No error handling in any phase |
| Backup and recovery mechanisms exist | ❌ Missing | No backup before config changes |
| Verification steps are included | ❌ Missing | No verification after agent registration |
| Configuration management is documented | ❌ Missing | No auth-profiles.json documentation |
| Failure recovery strategies exist | ❌ Missing | No recovery strategies for any phase |
Detailed Issues
Issue 1: Missing BOOTSTRAP.md in file list
- Phase: Phase 2
- Problem: BOOTSTRAP.md is mentioned in AGENTS.md specs but not in file list
- Impact: New agents lack first-run guidance
- Fix: Add
BOOTSTRAP.mdto Phase 2 file list
Issue 2: No agent registration logic
- Phase: Missing
- Problem: No
openclaw agents addcommand documented - Impact: Users must manually configure openclaw.json
- Fix: Add Phase 2.5 with
openclaw agents addcommand
Issue 3: No auth-profiles.json documentation
- Phase: Missing
- Problem: No authentication configuration documentation
- Impact: Agents cannot access external services (e.g., Feishu)
- Fix: Add authentication section after Phase 2.5
Issue 4: No backup mechanism
- Phase: Missing
- Problem: No backup before modifying openclaw.json
- Impact: Config errors can break entire OpenClaw system
- Fix: Add backup step before Phase 2.5
Issue 5: No configuration verification
- Phase: Missing
- Problem: No verification after agent registration
- Impact: Agent may not start correctly
- Fix: Add Phase 2.6 with verification steps
Issue 6: No directory creation robustness
- Phase: Phase 2
- Problem: No error handling for directory creation
- Impact: File writes fail silently if directory creation fails
- Fix: Add
mkdir -pwith error checking
Issue 7: No automated testing (Phase 8)
- Phase: Missing
- Problem: Only Phase 4 (acceptance tests), no automated testing
- Impact: No complete testing workflow
- Fix: Add Phase 8 with automated test commands
Issue 8: No failure recovery strategies
- Phase: All phases
- Problem: No recovery strategies for any phase
- Impact: Users don't know how to recover from failures
- Fix: Add failure recovery section to each phase
Issue 9: Unclear Feishu binding method
- Phase: Phase 1
- Problem: Question 2 asks "Which channels?" but doesn't clarify Feishu binding
- Impact: Users unclear about channel binding vs /agentname command
- Fix: Clarify Feishu binding options in Phase 1
Issue 10: Optional systemd heartbeat
- Phase: Optional
- Problem: No systemd service configuration option
- Impact: Cannot run agent as systemd service
- Fix: Add optional systemd service configuration
Score Summary
SKILL REVIEW SCORECARD
═══════════════════════════════════════
Skill: agent-builder-plus
Reviewer: 大鱼
Date: 2026-02-27
Category Score Max
─────────────────────────────────────
Level 1: Format 10 10 ✅
Level 2: Writing
- Structure 6 6 ✅
- Description 8 8 ✅
- Example density 1 3 ⚠️
- Organization 6 6 ✅
- Actionability 10 10 ✅
Level 3: Functional 0 20 ❌ CRITICAL
Level 4: Best Practices
- Progressive 5 5 ✅
- Resources 5 5 ✅
- Triggering 5 5 ✅
Level 5: Optimization 0 10 (recommendations provided)
)
Level 6: Workflow 0 20 ❌ CRITICAL
─────────────────────────────────────
TOTAL 56 116
RATING: 56/116 = Fair — significant gaps to address
VERDICT: REWORK (functional and workflow verification failed)
Top Defects
1. Functional Mismatch: AGENTS.md template missing critical OpenClaw specifications.
2. Workflow Incomplete: Missing agent registration, configuration verification, backup mechanisms, error handling, and failure recovery strategies.
Recommendation
- Update references/templates.md AGENTS.md template with all required sections
- Add Phase 2.5 (agent registration with
openclaw agents add) - Add Phase 2.6 (configuration verification)
- Add backup mechanism before config changes
- Add failure recovery strategies to each phase
- Add directory creation error handling
- Add Phase 8 (automated testing)
- Clarify Feishu binding options in Phase 1
- Add optional systemd service configuration
Review Workflow Guide
Level 1: Format Validation
Run automatic validation using package_skill.py:
python3 /home/yupeng/.npm-global/lib/node_modules/openclaw/skills/skill-creator/scripts/package_skill.py <skill-path>
Level 2: Writing Quality Assessment
Check structure, description, examples, organization, and actionability.
Level 3: Functional Verification
For OpenClaw skills, compare generated templates with actual specifications.
Level 4: Best Practices Check
Verify progressive disclosure, resource organization, and triggering accuracy.
Level 5: Optimization Recommendations
Provide prioritized recommendations (Critical/Major/Minor).
Level 6: Workflow Validation (For Workflow Tools)
Workflow Completeness Check
WORKFLOW COMPLETENESS CHECK:
[ ] Each phase has clear operational steps
[ ] Correct CLI commands are used
[ ] Error handling is documented
[ ] Backup and recovery mechanisms exist
[ ] Verification steps are included
[ ] Configuration management is documented
[ ] Failure recovery strategies exist
Phase-by-Phase Validation
For each phase in the workflow:
PHASE VALIDATION CHECKLIST:
Phase: [phase name]
Operational Steps:
[ ] Clear, step-by-step instructions provided
[ ] Commands are accurate and complete
[ ] Required parameters are specified
Error Handling:
[ ] Common errors are documented
[ ] Recovery steps are provided
[ ] Error messages are explained
Verification:
[ ] Success criteria are defined
[ ] Verification steps are included
[ ] How to confirm completion is explained
Dependencies:
[ ] Prerequisites are listed
[ ] Order dependencies are clear
[ ] Previous phase completion is verified
CLI Command Validation
For workflow tools that use OpenClaw CLI commands:
CLI COMMAND VALIDATION:
[ ] Commands are verified with `openclaw <command> --help`
[ ] Command syntax is correct
[ ] Required options are documented
[ ] Default values are explained
[ ] Example commands are runnable
Configuration Management
For tools that modify OpenClaw configuration:
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT CHECK:
[ ] Files being modified are listed
[ ] Backup mechanism is provided
[ ] Rollback steps are documented
[ ] Configuration validation is included
[ ] Authentication requirements are explained
Common Defects
Critical
- Invalid frontmatter
- Broken code examples
- Misleading description
- Functional mismatch (OpenClaw skills)
- Workflow incomplete (missing phases, no CLI commands)
- No backup before config changes
Major
- No "When to Use" information
- Text walls without examples
- Examples missing language tags
- Abstract organization
- Duplication between SKILL.md and references
- No error handling
- No verification steps
- No failure recovery strategies
Minor
- Placeholder values
- Inconsistent formatting
- Extraneous files
- Missing cross-references
- No quick start guide
Language Adaptation Guidelines
CRITICAL: Always respond in the same language as the user's request.
Detection Rules
Detect user language from the request message
- Check the language of the user's input message
- Use the same language for all responses
Language mapping
- Chinese (中文/汉语) → Respond in Chinese
- English → Respond in English
- Japanese (日本語) → Respond in Japanese
- Korean (한국어) → Respond in Korean
- Other languages → Respond in the detected language
Consistency
- Once language is detected, use it for the entire review
- All section headers, descriptions, and feedback should be in the same language
- Technical terms (like "Level 1", "Level 2") can remain in English if they are standard terminology
Example Scenarios
Scenario 1: User asks in Chinese
User: 请审查一下 agent-builder-plus 这个 skill
AI: (responds in Chinese)
## 审查结果:agent-builder-plus
...
Scenario 2: User asks in English
User: Please review the agent-builder-plus skill
AI: (responds in English)
## Review Results: agent-builder-plus
...
Scenario 3: User asks in mixed language
User: 请审查 agent-builder-plus skill
AI: (responds in Chinese, as the primary language is Chinese)
## 审查结果:agent-builder-plus
...
Implementation Notes
- Language detection should be done at the start of the review
- Use simple language detection (check for Chinese characters, etc.)
- If language cannot be detected, default to the language of the previous interaction
- Maintain language consistency throughout the entire review process
Technical Terms
Keep technical terms in English when appropriate:
- Skill names (e.g., "agent-builder-plus")
- File names (e.g., "SKILL.md", "IDENTITY.md")
- CLI commands (e.g., "openclaw agents add")
- Technical concepts (e.g., "workspace", "agent", "channel")
But translate descriptions, feedback, and explanations to the user's language.