Skills/ClawHub/gmail-wiki-ingest

gmail-wiki-ingest@0.5.3

CAUTION

Publisher claims: "Triage a batch of the user's email against their personal knowledge wiki and hand the verdicts back to javis-server, which bands them into auto-ingest / review card / auto-discard. Runs daily on an in-container openclaw cron agent turn, and on demand when the user asks to "ingest my email" / "gmail ingest" / "整理邮件". Four script commands do all the I/O over the gateway token — `fetch` returns thread metadata plus the user's knowledge model, their recent decisions and a per-sender trusted flag; `content` returns the full text of a shortlist of up to 12 threads, and only ones this run's `fetch` already offered; `submit` takes one verdict per candidate; `report` pushes the run digest to the user's chat. `rubric.md` owns the judgment — the category enum, the 0-1 relevance score, the citation rule and the policy for which threads earn a body read. Neither file owns the outcome — bands, sender trust, ref validation and every write stay server-side. Every run ends in a `report`, including a run that fetched nothing. Triggers — 'ingest my email', 'gmail ingest', 'sync my inbox to the wiki', '整理邮件', '邮件入库'." Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

Registry ClawHubPublisher samuel-wei · joined 0 days agoInstalls 744Last detonated 3 h ago
What would fix thisWatchDispute verdict

Is [email protected] safe to install?

KillerSkills analysed it statically (a sandbox run is pending) on 2026-10-28 and scored it 70/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. Notable findings: Fake instruction boundary tag. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

Behavior trace

Queued for honeypot run · static analysis only
t+CategoryObserved action

This version has not been detonated yet. The score above counts behavior as unknown (50/100), so it cannot read Verified until the honeypot run completes and replaces this verdict.

Static findings

CRITICAL
Fake instruction boundary tagreferences/trigger-contract.md:26 · Fake instruction boundary tagFix: Remove the text that addresses the agent rather than the reader; describe behavior, do not instruct.
AST01

No other findings across 3,449 lines in 11 files.

What would make this Verified

10 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%
  1. Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim samuel-wei: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.
Publish a new version to ClawHub, then queue it here. Not your skill? Claim the handle to get verdict changes by email.Claim samuel-wei