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).
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:qsimeon/openclaw-engaging --skill healthcheck91
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillEvaluation — 95%
↑ 2.11xAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
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 well-crafted skill description that excels across all dimensions. It clearly specifies the domain (OpenClaw security hardening), lists concrete actions, provides explicit 'Use when' triggers with natural user terminology, and maintains distinctiveness through product-specific context and deployment scenarios.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'security audits, firewall/SSH/update hardening, risk posture, exposure review, OpenClaw cron scheduling for periodic checks, version status checks' - these are clear, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Host security hardening and risk-tolerance configuration for OpenClaw deployments') and when ('Use when a user asks for security audits, firewall/SSH/update hardening...') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'security audits', 'firewall', 'SSH', 'hardening', 'risk posture', 'exposure review', 'cron scheduling', 'version status', plus specific deployment contexts like 'laptop, workstation, Pi, VPS'. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with the 'OpenClaw' product name as a clear differentiator, combined with specific security hardening context and deployment targets (Pi, VPS). Unlikely to conflict with generic security or system administration 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 security hardening skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The step-by-step process with explicit validation checkpoints and required confirmations demonstrates strong safety practices. However, the skill is verbose for its purpose and could benefit from tighter prose and better progressive disclosure by moving detailed command references to separate files.
Suggestions
Consider moving the detailed OS-specific commands (step 1 checks) and risk profile definitions (step 4) to separate reference files to reduce the main skill length
Consolidate repeated instructions about numbered choices and approval requirements into a single 'Interaction rules' section to reduce redundancy
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated mentions of numbered choices, multiple reminders about approval requirements). Some sections could be tightened, though it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific, executable commands throughout (e.g., `ss -ltnup`, `openclaw security audit --deep`, `tmutil status`). Commands are copy-paste ready with clear OS-specific variants and exact CLI flags documented. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent sequential workflow with numbered steps (0-8), explicit validation checkpoints (re-run audits in step 8), rollback considerations, and clear feedback loops. Includes required confirmations section and access-preservation strategy. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear section headers, but the skill is quite long (~200 lines) and could benefit from splitting detailed command references or risk profiles into separate files. All content is inline rather than appropriately distributed. | 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.
- 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.