openclaw/clawhub
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/openclaw/clawhub.git synced 2026-07-21 19:25:25 -04:00
Code Issues 183 Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Skill Flagged: https://clawhub.ai/0xtommythomas-dev/soulflow #147

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-02-15 17:15:55 -05:00 by yindo · 0 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-15 17:15:55 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @0xtommythomas-dev on GitHub (Feb 12, 2026).

Hi ClawHub team,

I'm requesting a manual review of the SoulFlow skill, which is currently flagged as "Suspicious" due to its elevated permissions.

Why the flag is understandable:
SoulFlow modifies gateway config, creates persistent agents with full tool access, and inherits external credentials. These are powerful capabilities that warrant scrutiny.

Why these permissions are necessary and legitimate:

  1. Gateway modification — Required to register the worker agent (same as openclaw agent add CLI command)
  2. Full tool access — Workflows need real capabilities to be useful:
    • security-audit must read source files
    • bug-fix must edit code
    • deploy-pipeline must run git/SSH commands
  3. authProfiles inheritance — Allows workflows to complete end-to-end automation (git push, cloud deployments) without manual credential re-entry
  4. Persistent worker — Prevents context bleed between workflow steps (each step runs in isolated session)
    Transparency measures taken:

• Explicit metadata declarations (config_files, permissions, credentials: inherit)
• Comprehensive Security & Permissions documentation in SKILL.md (http://skill.md/)
• Trust warnings ("Only install if you trust the author")
• Detailed "What to consider before installing" section
• Open source on GitHub (all code reviewable)
• Zero external dependencies (no supply-chain risk)
Similar legitimate tools:

SoulFlow is architecturally similar to CI/CD tools (GitHub Actions, Jenkins) that also require:

• Config access (for authentication)
• Code modification permissions (for automation)
• External credentials (for deployments)
The difference is SoulFlow runs locally on your OpenClaw instance instead of remotely.

Request:

Could a human reviewer assess whether the security warning accurately reflects risk vs. legitimate functionality? The skill does what it says, documents all permissions up front, and is transparent about credential access.

If the flag is appropriate (I understand it might be), could it be downgraded to "Requires Review" instead of "Suspicious"? Or add a note like "High privilege by design — review docs before installing"?

Author accountability:

• GitHub: @0xtommythomas-dev
• Product: SoulStack (soulstack.app)
• Telegram: @TommyThomas0x
Open to any feedback or modifications that would address concerns while preserving functionality.

Thanks for maintaining a secure skill ecosystem.

Originally created by @0xtommythomas-dev on GitHub (Feb 12, 2026). Hi ClawHub team, I'm requesting a manual review of the SoulFlow skill, which is currently flagged as "Suspicious" due to its elevated permissions. Why the flag is understandable: SoulFlow modifies gateway config, creates persistent agents with full tool access, and inherits external credentials. These are powerful capabilities that warrant scrutiny. Why these permissions are necessary and legitimate: 1. Gateway modification — Required to register the worker agent (same as openclaw agent add CLI command) 2. Full tool access — Workflows need real capabilities to be useful: • security-audit must read source files • bug-fix must edit code • deploy-pipeline must run git/SSH commands 3. authProfiles inheritance — Allows workflows to complete end-to-end automation (git push, cloud deployments) without manual credential re-entry 4. Persistent worker — Prevents context bleed between workflow steps (each step runs in isolated session) Transparency measures taken: • Explicit metadata declarations (config_files, permissions, credentials: inherit) • Comprehensive Security & Permissions documentation in SKILL.md (http://skill.md/) • Trust warnings ("Only install if you trust the author") • Detailed "What to consider before installing" section • Open source on GitHub (all code reviewable) • Zero external dependencies (no supply-chain risk) Similar legitimate tools: SoulFlow is architecturally similar to CI/CD tools (GitHub Actions, Jenkins) that also require: • Config access (for authentication) • Code modification permissions (for automation) • External credentials (for deployments) The difference is SoulFlow runs locally on your OpenClaw instance instead of remotely. Request: Could a human reviewer assess whether the security warning accurately reflects risk vs. legitimate functionality? The skill does what it says, documents all permissions up front, and is transparent about credential access. If the flag is appropriate (I understand it might be), could it be downgraded to "Requires Review" instead of "Suspicious"? Or add a note like "High privilege by design — review docs before installing"? Author accountability: • GitHub: @0xtommythomas-dev • Product: SoulStack (soulstack.app) • Telegram: @TommyThomas0x Open to any feedback or modifications that would address concerns while preserving functionality. Thanks for maintaining a secure skill ecosystem.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
yindo
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: openclaw/clawhub#147
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?