Fetch GitHub repository metadata and project files, generate an evidence-based repository evaluation, and save the evaluation into the target knowledge base.
集成
Kb Eval Repo
试用Evaluate whether a GitHub/open-source repository is useful for the user's selected Research KB context.
它能做什么
Evaluate whether a GitHub/open-source repository is useful for the user's selected Research KB context. Use for query-page tasks asking to assess a repo's relevance, usefulness, reproducibility, setup effort, risks, or whether it is worth studying; accepts Java backend research_kb_agent_task JSON with taskType kb_query or kb_eval_repo and returns query-compatible answer/citations.
技能文档
Skill: kb_eval_repo
Scope
Use this skill only when the user is asking to evaluate an open-source project, usually with a GitHub URL or owner/repo name, and wants a judgment such as:
- 是否对我/团队有用
- 值不值得深入
- 能不能复现
- 环境怎么配
- 风险、坑、适配成本
- 和知识库已有资料是什么关系
Do not use it for normal knowledge-base lookup, paper ingestion, file ingestion, or broad literature review.
Input
Accept the same query-page envelope used by the Java backend:
protocol = research_kb_agent_tasktaskType = kb_queryorkb_eval_repokbTargets[]contains one or two repositoriespayload.questionis the user's natural-language request- Optional:
payload.repoUrl,payload.options.writeReview
Only read repositories listed in kbTargets. Do not infer or access any other repository.
Workflow
- Validate the task JSON.
- Extract a GitHub repo from
payload.repoUrl,payload.question, orowner/repotext. - If a GitHub repo is present, fetch public metadata, README, and common dependency/config files.
- Read relevant Markdown pages from the selected knowledge repositories.
- Evaluate with five dimensions:
- relevance to the selected KB context
- reproducibility and engineering maturity
- activity and credibility
- adaptation cost
- unique value compared with KB materials
- Give exactly one verdict:
值得深入选择性参考暂不建议
- Return a query-compatible JSON result with:
answercitationsusedScopesreadPages- optional
generatedPage
If payload.options.writeReview is not false, write an evaluation report to reviews/-开源项目评估.md in the first selected target repository and cite it.
Evidence Rules
- Project facts must come from GitHub metadata/README/dependency files.
- Knowledge-base comparisons must come from pages actually read.
- If no repo URL/name is provided and no related KB project can be found, ask the user to provide a GitHub URL.
- If GitHub cannot be fetched, explain the failure and still use KB evidence if enough exists.
- Do not pretend the project was actually installed or run. State that reproducibility is an initial assessment based on repository materials.
Output
Return only one JSON object. Do not use Markdown fences.
{
"protocol": "research_kb_agent_result",
"protocolVersion": "1.0",
"taskId": "...",
"taskType": "...",
"success": true,
"result": {
"answer": "...",
"citations": [],
"usedScopes": ["personal"],
"readPages": [],
"mode": "repo_evaluation",
"generatedPage": ""
},
"errors": []
}
Helper
Prefer the bundled deterministic helper:
python3 scripts/run_task.py --stdin
python3 scripts/run_task.py --task-json
相关技能
Answer Research KB questions from the team Gitea-backed knowledge base with OpenClaw reasoning, optional reference attachments, stable citations, OpenClaw-led evidence selection, and optional high-value Q&A persistence.
Produce a focused literature/knowledge review using only selected Research KB contents.
Answer Research KB dialogue questions with team-overview-guided web search, external citations, optional reference attachments, and no QA persistence.
Jointly analyze a research paper and its open-source implementation. Use when a user wants to understand a paper through code, map theory/formulas/algorithms...
use for adaptive deep research, broad but accurate information gathering, literature review, github and project due diligence, source graph investigation, ci...