healthcheck
Host security hardening and risk-tolerance configuration for OpenClaw deployments. Use when a user asks for security audits, firewall/SSH/update hardening, risk posture, exposure review, OpenClaw cron scheduling for periodic checks, or version status checks on a machine running OpenClaw (laptop, workstation, Pi, VPS).
91
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
2.11xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly defines its scope around OpenClaw deployment security hardening. It provides specific concrete actions, includes a comprehensive 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, and is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with other skills. The description is concise yet thorough, using proper third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: security audits, firewall/SSH/update hardening, risk posture configuration, exposure review, cron scheduling for periodic checks, and version status checks. These are clearly defined capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (host security hardening and risk-tolerance configuration for OpenClaw deployments) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing specific trigger scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'security audits', 'firewall', 'SSH', 'hardening', 'risk posture', 'exposure review', 'cron scheduling', 'version status', 'OpenClaw', plus device types like 'laptop', 'workstation', 'Pi', 'VPS'. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific product name 'OpenClaw' and the combination of host security hardening with that particular deployment context. Unlikely to conflict with generic security or generic deployment skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill with a clear multi-step workflow, explicit validation checkpoints, and strong safety guardrails (required confirmations, rollback plans, access preservation). Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity—some sections like non-technical prompt examples and repeated formatting instructions could be trimmed—and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed reference material into separate files.
Suggestions
Consider extracting OS-specific command references (Linux vs macOS vs Windows checks) into a separate reference file to reduce the main skill's length and improve progressive disclosure.
Trim the non-technical prompt examples in step 1—Claude can generate user-friendly questions without being given exact phrasings for each item.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~200+ lines) and includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., non-technical prompt examples that Claude could generate on its own, repeated emphasis on numbered choices). However, most content is task-specific and not explaining concepts Claude already knows. Some tightening is possible but it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific, executable commands throughout (e.g., `openclaw security audit --deep`, `ss -ltnup`, `sw_vers`, `tmutil status`, `openclaw cron add --name <name>`). It includes exact CLI flags, OS-specific command variants, and concrete cron job naming conventions. Guidance is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly numbered (steps 0-8) with explicit sequencing, validation checkpoints (step 8 re-checks firewall, ports, access, and re-runs audit), feedback loops (stop on unexpected output), rollback planning, and required confirmation gates before any state-changing action. Destructive operations are gated behind explicit approval. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is entirely monolithic in a single file with no references to supporting documents for detailed topics (e.g., OS-specific hardening details, risk profile templates, or remediation command libraries could be split out). For a skill of this length and complexity, some content splitting would improve navigability. However, sections are well-organized with clear headers. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- Hung-Reo/hungreo-openclaw
- Commit
a5bf5e0
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.