CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ClawTeam

This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a team", "spawn agents", "assign tasks", "coordinate multiple agents", "check team status", "view kanban board", "send messages between agents", "manage team tasks", "monitor team progress", or mentions "clawteam", legacy "oh", "multi-agent coordination", "team collaboration", "agent inbox", "task board", "spawn worker". This skill should also be triggered when the current task is complex enough to benefit from splitting into subtasks and delegating to multiple agents — for example when the user asks to "build a full-stack app", "refactor the entire codebase", "implement multiple features in parallel", or when the agent determines that the work scope exceeds what a single agent can efficiently handle alone. Provides comprehensive guidance for using the ClawTeam CLI to orchestrate multi-agent teams with task management, messaging, monitoring, runtime profiles, git context, and recovery tooling.

68

Quality

82%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable with executable commands and a well-sequenced orchestration pattern, but it is over-long for a single file with notable repetition, lacks validation around its destructive cleanup/batch-merge steps, and uses no progressive disclosure to offload the large command reference and template details. Tightening the redundancy and adding a merge-verification checkpoint before cleanup would raise the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the repeated team-create/task-create/spawn commands and the 'do NOT wait for the user to ask' reminder so each appears once (e.g. in Quick Start) and the Leader Orchestration Pattern references it, improving conciseness.

Add an explicit verification step before the destructive `team cleanup --force` — e.g. confirm `workspace merge` succeeded for each agent (check exit status / board status) and verify all tasks are 'completed' — to satisfy the validation requirement for destructive/batch operations and lift workflow_clarity.

Move the large Command Reference, Templates, and Data Location sections into a reference file (e.g. REFERENCE.md) linked one level deep from the overview, adding real progressive disclosure to this 274-line monolith.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and is mostly executable content, but at 274 lines it carries real redundancy — 'Manual Team Setup' and 'Leader Orchestration Pattern Phase 2/3' repeat the same team-create / task-create / spawn commands, and the 'do NOT wait for the user to ask' injunction is stated ~5 times. This fits the score-2 anchor of mostly efficient but with unnecessary repetition that could be tightened. It is not a 3 because the repeated blocks do not each earn their tokens.

2 / 3

Actionability

Throughout it provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands — the command reference tables, the quick-start block, and the embedded bash+Python monitor loop — matching the score-3 anchor. It is not a 2 because the examples are concrete and runnable rather than pseudocode or vague direction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 5-phase leader pattern is clearly sequenced and the poll loop provides a completion checkpoint, but the destructive `team cleanup --force` and the batch merge loop have no verification/validation step confirming merges succeeded before cleanup. Per the rubric's scoring note, missing validation in destructive or batch operations caps workflow_clarity at 2. It is not a 1 because the sequence and completion-detection checkpoint are present, just lacking validation of the destructive/batch steps.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent) and the skill is a 274-line monolith with the full command reference, templates, and data-location tables all inline. Per the scoring note the 'under 50 lines, no external references' exemption does not apply, so this matches the score-2 anchor of structure present but with content that should be separate kept inline. It is not a 3 because nothing is split out or signaled as one-level-deep references, and not a 1 because sections are well-organized rather than a nested-reference maze.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

The description is strong across all dimensions: it states concrete capabilities, provides an explicit 'Use when' clause plus a natural trigger-phrase list, and occupies a clear niche via the ClawTeam-specific terminology. Voice is third person throughout, so no person-voice penalty applies.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'create agent teams, spawn multiple agents to work in parallel, coordinate tasks with dependencies, broadcast messages between agents, monitor progress via kanban board, or launch pre-built team templates' — matching the score-3 anchor for listing several specific concrete actions. It is not a 2 because it goes beyond naming a domain plus a couple of actions to enumerating six distinct capabilities.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ('Multi-agent swarm coordination via the ClawTeam CLI' plus the capability list) and 'when' ('Use when the user wants to create agent teams...'), matching the score-3 anchor for clearly answering both what and when with explicit triggers. It is not a 2 because the 'when' is stated explicitly rather than merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes an explicit 'Trigger phrases:' list — 'team, swarm, multi-agent, clawteam, spawn agents, parallel agents, agent team' — which are natural terms a user would say, satisfying the score-3 anchor of good coverage. It is not a 2 because these are common natural variations rather than only technical jargon or a single keyword.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche — multi-agent swarm coordination via the ClawTeam CLI — with the distinctive trigger 'clawteam' and product-specific templates, making conflict with other skills unlikely per the score-3 anchor. It is not a 2 because the named tool and templates give it a distinct niche rather than a generic overlap.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
win4r/ClawTeam-OpenClaw
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.