Skill: neomagnetar/clawhub-skill-packager (version 1.5.2)

--- name: clawhub-skill-packager description: "Turn rough, partial, or broken ClawHub/OpenClaw skill material into one publish-ready skill bundle plus one separate plain-text review file using an inference-first, low-friction workflow." version: "1.5.2" user-invocable: true disable-model-invocation: true metadata: {"openclaw":{"emoji":"📦","skillKey":"clawhub-skill-packager"}} --- # ClawHub Skill Packager Use this skill when the user wants to create, repair, review, rename, repackage, or republish a ClawHub / OpenClaw skill bundle. ## Product promise This skill makes the **publish-ready skill package first**. Then it provides the **separate review file** that explains: - what was provided - what was inferred - what was fixed - what still deserves human review The package is the main product. The review file is the supporting layer. ## Unified identity rule This skill uses one unified identity across runtime, packaging, and publishing surfaces: - runtime name: `clawhub-skill-packager` - slug: `clawhub-skill-packager` - folder name: `clawhub-skill-packager` - metadata.openclaw.skillKey: `clawhub-skill-packager` Do not intentionally split runtime, folder, slug, and skill key identities unless the user explicitly asks for it. ## Core job This skill turns user input, existing skill files, or partial drafts into a **publish-ready ClawHub/OpenClaw skill bundle**. It is designed to: - inspect what is present - infer what is missing when reasonable - repair inconsistencies - build the package anyway when a safe best-effort package is possible - self-audit the result - return one pure publish bundle plus one separate plain-text review file ## Operating stance This skill is designed for **low-friction handoff**. When the user provides material: - inspect what is there - infer what is missing when reasonable - choose the best safe course based on current knowledge - avoid unnecessary clarification loops - return a concrete package plus a review statement Prefer **statements** over **questions**. If something is missing but inferable: - infer it - note the inference - keep moving If something is risky, ambiguous, or likely to affect publishing: - still produce the package when a safe best-effort package is possible - highlight the issue clearly in the review file - mark it for user review Do not stop at “more info needed” when a reasonable package can still be built. Default to the **full release-bundle standard**, not the minimal valid skill standard, unless the user explicitly asks for a minimal package. ## Exact output contract Always produce exactly **two user-facing deliverables**. ### A. Publish bundle zip A zip-ready skill folder containing **only** files that directly belong to the skill as a release artifact. This bundle must include: - `SKILL.md` - `README.md` - `CHANGELOG.md` It may also include only those additional files that are genuinely part of the skill itself or required for the skill to function correctly, such as: - `references/` - `examples/` - `scripts/` - `configs/` - `assets/` Do **not** include inside the publish bundle: - review notes - inference notes - build commentary - user/AI discussion notes - release review records - handoff notes that are only about packaging this build The publish bundle should look like it was made for the skill itself, not for the conversation that created it. ### B. Separate plain-text review file A separate review file in plain text. Preferred format: - `.txt` This review file should say: - what inputs were provided - what information was missing - what assumptions were made - what was added - what was edited - what was removed - what was inferred - what still deserves human review - whether the package appears publish-ready - the final publish/install handoff details The review file must remain **outside** the publish bundle unless the user explicitly asks for it to be embedded. ## Standard support artifacts inside this packager skill This packager skill ships with reusable support files that are part of the skill itself. Use them like this: - `REVIEW-CHECKLIST.txt` = the permanent self-audit standard - `REVIEW-RECORD-TEMPLATE.txt` = the base for the generated separate review file ## Operating modes Use one of these modes based on the user's request and the material provided. ### 1. Package-from-scratch Use when the user provides a concept, rough notes, or minimal package material. Pass 1: - assemble identity - infer missing metadata - define package surfaces - identify major assumptions Pass 2: - build files - self-audit - generate the separate review file ### 2. Repair-existing-skill Use when the user provides an existing skill package that needs cleanup, fixes, or modernization. Pass 1: - inspect existing files - identify drift, breakage, or parser-risky structure - determine what should be preserved Pass 2: - repair and normalize - self-audit - generate the separate review file ### 3. Audit-only Use when the user wants analysis and recommendations without generating a new package. Pass 1: - inspect the provided package or concept - identify strengths, issues, risks, and missing information Pass 2: - generate the review file - do not build a replacement package unless the user also asked for packaging ### 4. Republish / update Use when the user already has a package and wants version, naming, positioning, or packaging updates for republishing. Pass 1: - inspect the current package - identify what changed since the prior release - align versioning, naming, and publish surfaces Pass 2: - update files - self-audit - generate the separate review file ### 5. Rename / rebrand Use when identity surfaces need changing while preserving intended behavior. Pass 1: - inspect current identity surfaces - preserve intended behavior - determine which naming surfaces change and which remain stable Pass 2: - rewrite aligned identity surfaces - self-audit - generate the separate review file ## Packaging workflow ### Step 1 — Inspect Look at all provided material: - text prompts - existing `SKILL.md` - existing `README.md` - existing `CHANGELOG.md` - file names - intended display name - intended slug - invocation ideas - notes about platform behavior - prior package artifacts if relevant ### Step 2 — Determine completeness Check whether the package has enough information for: - display name - slug - runtime identity - version - description - tags - invocation behavior - public positioning - file set - frontmatter format - compatibility with current OpenClaw parser expectations ### Step 3 — Infer or repair If something is missing or inconsistent: - choose the best safe default - repair mismatched naming - align display name, slug, runtime name, folder name, skill key, and README publish fields unless the user explicitly requests a split - correct parser-risky frontmatter - normalize versioning - remove obvious contradictions - preserve intended behavior whenever possible ### Step 4 — Build the package Create the full package folder and final file contents. ### Step 5 — Self-audit Run a second-pass review using `REVIEW-CHECKLIST.txt`. ### Step 6 — Deliver Deliver exactly two user-facing artifacts: - the final publish bundle zip - the separate review file built from `REVIEW-RECORD-TEMPLATE.txt` Then provide a short summary in the response telling the user: - here is your publish bundle - here is your review file - here is what was inferred - here is what was fixed - here is what may still deserve review ## Visibility rule Do not bury final deliverables in an internal-only path without clearly surfacing them. The publish zip and the separate review file must be: - clearly identified - surfaced directly to the user - returned as the final two artifacts Do not report completion until both artifacts are available in a directly user-visible way for the current environment. ## Skill type awareness When packaging a skill, classify it before building. Possible classes include: - instruction-only skill - formatting / style skill - workflow / orchestration skill - code or script-backed skill - API-dependent skill - environment-variable-dependent skill - binary / external-tool-dependent skill - mixed package Use the class to decide: - what files are needed - what install notes are needed - what security notes are needed - what review flags matter most ## Runtime and security declarations Inspect for: - environment variable requirements - secrets or credentials - external API dependencies - script or binary execution assumptions - file system expectations - privilege or escalation requirements - background or always-on behavior If these exist: - package the skill anyway when safe - state them clearly in the review file - highlight them for review ## Frontmatter rules For OpenClaw compatibility, prefer: - single-line frontmatter keys - metadata as a single-line JSON object - quoted version - quoted long description strings when helpful Preferred base frontmatter pattern: ```yaml --- name: skill-slug description: "Short clear skill description." version: "1.0.0" user-invocable: true disable-model-invocation: true metadata: {"openclaw":{"emoji":"📦","skillKey":"skill-slug"}} --- ``` ## Naming rules Align these surfaces unless the user explicitly wants them different: - public display name - package folder name - slug - runtime name - metadata.openclaw.skillKey - README publish fields - changelog package identity Use: - human-readable title for display name - lowercase hyphenated form for slug - the same lowercase hyphenated form for runtime name by default ## Review checklist A package should be checked for all of the following. ### Identity alignment - display name matches intent - slug is lowercase and hyphenated - folder name matches slug - runtime name matches slug unless intentionally split - skill key matches slug - README publish fields match final identity - changelog reflects the current version and identity ### Frontmatter health - `SKILL.md` exists - frontmatter is present - `name` exists - `description` exists - `version` exists - `metadata` uses single-line JSON - invocation flags are present when useful - emoji is present if desired - parser-risky nested metadata is repaired ### Behavioral clarity - purpose is clear - scope is clear - activation behavior is clear - explicit invocation is defined if needed - output behavior is described - risky ambiguity is reduced ### Public positioning - branding is reasonable - wording is accurate - descriptions do not overclaim capabilities - external affiliation wording is safe when relevant ### Runtime / security awareness - skill type is correctly classified - env var requirements are documented - API dependencies are documented - binaries / scripts are documented - privilege assumptions are documented - risky surfaces are highlighted ### Deliverable separation - publish bundle contains only skill-release files - review content is kept outside the publish bundle - review file is plain text - final deliverables are surfaced separately ### Deliverables - package files were generated - separate review file was generated - changes are summarized - assumptions are highlighted - publish-readiness is stated ## Severity markers Use these markers consistently: - `✅ FIXED AUTOMATICALLY` = safe automatic repair completed - `🔶 INFERRED FIELD` = best-effort inferred value that should remain visible - `⚠️ REQUIRED REVIEW` = likely publish-affecting issue that deserves human confirmation - `📝 EDITED FOR ALIGNMENT` = consistency edit across identity or package surfaces - `🚀 READY TO PUBLISH` = no major blocker detected in the final package ## Final response contract At completion, report in this order: 1. brief status line 2. the publish bundle zip 3. the separate review file 4. short bullet summary of: - what was created - what was changed - what assumptions were made - what should be reviewed 5. publish-readiness statement ## Second-pass workflow If the user returns with edits or clarifications: - re-run the same inspection and package workflow - preserve the accepted identity and structure unless the new instructions change them - reduce the number of inferred fields - keep the second-pass output cleaner and closer to final - aim for a near-zero-friction publish handoff ## Operating note This skill is a packager and self-auditor for ClawHub / OpenClaw skills. Its job is to turn incomplete or inconsistent skill drafts into coherent publish-ready bundles while preserving the user's intended behavior whenever possible and minimizing decision friction for the user.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)