{"id":"24d996d2-21b9-4357-9b8c-8c0ef43f87d7","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer","name":"tcms-compliance-reviewer","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T21:01:15.284Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. Skill: tcms-compliance-reviewer Owner: haiyangchenbj Summary: Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. Tags: brand-writing:1.0.2, content-marketing:1.0.2, latest:1.1.6, tech-product:1.0.2 Version history","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17672gh0nx9qr7sjp84kz7xen83jv7v:tcms-compliance-reviewer","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/tcms-compliance-reviewer","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/tcms-compliance-reviewer","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":60,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formattin"},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":1027,"likes":null,"task":null,"library":null,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"1.1.6","tractionLabel":"1K downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.103Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.103Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-12T16:33:44.103Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"1.1.6","createdAt":"2026-09-20T03:55:35.678Z","changelog":"Full-package republish: bilingual READMEs included. No changes to SKILL.md content except the version bump.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":6879},{"version":"1.1.5","createdAt":"2026-09-08T03:12:09.395Z","changelog":"Refresh release: align version number across ClawHub / SkillHub / GitHub, no content changes","fileCount":3,"zipByteSize":5501},{"version":"1.1.3","createdAt":"2026-08-24T06:06:38.774Z","changelog":"Add not_for routing field (agent-consumption-first design per skill-design-guide Principle Two)","fileCount":3,"zipByteSize":5449},{"version":"1.1.2","createdAt":"2026-08-07T06:39:31.287Z","changelog":"tcms-compliance-reviewer 1.1.2 - Added a Chinese summary description (description_zh) for improved multilingual support. - Removed the obsolete file skill-card.md. - No changes to core functionality or workflow.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":6809},{"version":"1.1.1","createdAt":"2026-08-02T15:57:37.636Z","changelog":"Sync local 1.1.1 with --slug standardization; no content change from 1.1.0","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":6883},{"version":"1.1.0","createdAt":"2026-07-31T04:51:00.916Z","changelog":"English-body localization: translate SKILL.md to English per ClawHub convention; retain Chinese read_when triggers and a Chinese tail summary; de-branded expression red lines and pre-publish governance checks preserved; version bump.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":6783},{"version":"1.0.2","createdAt":"2026-07-31T03:11:13.175Z","changelog":"Add de-branded expression red-lines (no meta-language, no biz-jargon, no absolutization, P0 naming consistency, faithful transcription vs quantified claims) and pre-publish reinforcement checks, distilled from multi-round draft revision and the three-piece governance line.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":6505},{"version":"1.0.1","createdAt":"2026-07-30T11:20:37.301Z","changelog":"Initial public release of the TCMS (tech-product content-marketing) skill family. Brand-side content for tech-product marketing teams. De-branded engine, no vendor-specific info.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":5602}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17672gh0nx9qr7sjp84kz7xen83jv7v:tcms-compliance-reviewer","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Setup complexity is classified as HIGH. You must provision dedicated cloud infrastructure or an isolated VM. Do not run this directly on your local workstation.","Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data."],"contract":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T21:01:15.280Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-haiyangchenbj-tcms-compliance-reviewer/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: tcms-compliance-reviewer\n\nOwner: haiyangchenbj\n\nSummary: Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nTags: brand-writing:1.0.2, content-marketing:1.0.2, latest:1.1.6, tech-product:1.0.2\n\nVersion history:\n\nv1.1.6 | 2026-09-20T03:55:35.678Z | user\n\nFull-package republish: bilingual READMEs included. No changes to SKILL.md content except the version bump.\n\nv1.1.5 | 2026-09-08T03:12:09.395Z | user\n\nRefresh release: align version number across ClawHub / SkillHub / GitHub, no content changes\n\nv1.1.3 | 2026-08-24T06:06:38.774Z | user\n\nAdd not_for routing field (agent-consumption-first design per skill-design-guide Principle Two)\n\nv1.1.2 | 2026-08-07T06:39:31.287Z | auto\n\ntcms-compliance-reviewer 1.1.2\n\n- Added a Chinese summary description (description_zh) for improved multilingual support.\n- Removed the obsolete file skill-card.md.\n- No changes to core functionality or workflow.\n\nv1.1.1 | 2026-08-02T15:57:37.636Z | user\n\nSync local 1.1.1 with --slug standardization; no content change from 1.1.0\n\nv1.1.0 | 2026-07-31T04:51:00.916Z | user\n\nEnglish-body localization: translate SKILL.md to English per ClawHub convention; retain Chinese read_when triggers and a Chinese tail summary; de-branded expression red lines and pre-publish governance checks preserved; version bump.\n\nv1.0.2 | 2026-07-31T03:11:13.175Z | user\n\nAdd de-branded expression red-lines (no meta-language, no biz-jargon, no absolutization, P0 naming consistency, faithful transcription vs quantified claims) and pre-publish reinforcement checks, distilled from multi-round draft revision and the three-piece governance line.\n\nv1.0.1 | 2026-07-30T11:20:37.301Z | user\n\nInitial public release of the TCMS (tech-product content-marketing) skill family. Brand-side content for tech-product marketing teams. De-branded engine, no vendor-specific info.\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v1.1.6: 5 files, 6879 bytes\n\nFiles: _meta.json (143b), README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2250b), SKILL.md (8401b)\n\nFile v1.1.6:SKILL.md\n\n---\nslug: tcms-compliance-reviewer\ndisplayName: Tcms Compliance Reviewer\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\nversion: \"1.1.6\"\nnot_for:\n  - Modifying the draft (review and fix suggestions only)\n  - Legal review or contract compliance (content compliance focus)\n  - Post-publication monitoring or takedown decisions\n  - Fact-checking primary sources (citation-format and naming focus)\ndescription: |\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\ndescription_zh: \"发布前合规审查器：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，输出预审报告与修改建议，不改原文。\"\n\nread_when:\n  - 预审\n  - 审核\n  - 审稿\n  - 终审\n  - review\n  - 检查初稿\n  - fact check\n  - 合规检查\n  - 发布前审核\n  - 发稿前检查\n  - pre-publication review\nmetadata:\n  openclaw:\n    tags:\n      - content-marketing\n      - tech-product\n      - compliance\n      - fact-check\n      - editorial-review\n      - quality-control\n      - b2b\ndisable: false\n---\n\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\n\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\n\n## When to use\n\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\n\n## Do not use\n\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\n\n## Input\n\n```yaml\ndraft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:\n```\n\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\n\n1. Read the article under review.\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\n\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\n\n| # | Check | PASS description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\n\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\n\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\n\nOutput:\n\n```markdown\n# Pre-Review Report\n\n## Summary\n\n| Item | Result | Note |\n|---|---|---|\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n\n## Specific issues\n\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\n\n## Citation verification\n\n| Claim | Source | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n\n## Overall assessment\n\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\n\n## Recommended approval level\n\n- Level and rationale.\n```\n\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\n\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\n\nExecution summary:\n\n```markdown\n## Execution Summary\n- Article reviewed:\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\n- Critical issues:\n```\n\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\n\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\n\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\n\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\n\n## Hard Rules\n\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\n\n## Failure Handling\n\n| Scenario | Action |\n|---|---|\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\n\n## Output Format\n\n```text\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\n```\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\n\n---\n\n## 中文摘要\n\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.6:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.1.6:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.6\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1789876535678\n}\n\nFile v1.1.6:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.1.6:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nBrand-side tech-product marketing teams use this skill to review finished blogs, case studies, product updates, and press releases before publication. It checks compliance and quality issues, then produces a separate pre-review report with issue locations, suggested fixes, citation verification, and an approval recommendation.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: Generic review and fact-check triggers may route private drafts, compliance profiles, or knowledge-base material into this workflow.\n\nMitigation: Install and invoke the skill only for intended brand-side pre-publication review, and confirm that access to private compliance profiles is appropriate for the review request.\n\nRisk: Reviews can be incomplete when the compliance profile, product policy, or knowledge-base section is missing or outdated.\n\nMitigation: Treat missing sources as incomplete or unverifiable, request updated profile material, and require human confirmation before handoff.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report saved as a separate file]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Does not modify the source draft; report includes pass, needs-fix, or fail results for each check and an execution summary.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.1.6 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v1.1.5: 3 files, 5501 bytes\n\nFiles: _meta.json (143b), skill-card.md (2480b), SKILL.md (8401b)\n\nFile v1.1.5:SKILL.md\n\n---\nslug: tcms-compliance-reviewer\ndisplayName: Tcms Compliance Reviewer\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\nversion: \"1.1.5\"\nnot_for:\n  - Modifying the draft (review and fix suggestions only)\n  - Legal review or contract compliance (content compliance focus)\n  - Post-publication monitoring or takedown decisions\n  - Fact-checking primary sources (citation-format and naming focus)\ndescription: |\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\ndescription_zh: \"发布前合规审查器：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，输出预审报告与修改建议，不改原文。\"\n\nread_when:\n  - 预审\n  - 审核\n  - 审稿\n  - 终审\n  - review\n  - 检查初稿\n  - fact check\n  - 合规检查\n  - 发布前审核\n  - 发稿前检查\n  - pre-publication review\nmetadata:\n  openclaw:\n    tags:\n      - content-marketing\n      - tech-product\n      - compliance\n      - fact-check\n      - editorial-review\n      - quality-control\n      - b2b\ndisable: false\n---\n\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\n\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\n\n## When to use\n\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\n\n## Do not use\n\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\n\n## Input\n\n```yaml\ndraft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:\n```\n\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\n\n1. Read the article under review.\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\n\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\n\n| # | Check | PASS description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\n\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\n\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\n\nOutput:\n\n```markdown\n# Pre-Review Report\n\n## Summary\n\n| Item | Result | Note |\n|---|---|---|\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n\n## Specific issues\n\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\n\n## Citation verification\n\n| Claim | Source | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n\n## Overall assessment\n\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\n\n## Recommended approval level\n\n- Level and rationale.\n```\n\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\n\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\n\nExecution summary:\n\n```markdown\n## Execution Summary\n- Article reviewed:\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\n- Critical issues:\n```\n\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\n\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\n\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\n\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\n\n## Hard Rules\n\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\n\n## Failure Handling\n\n| Scenario | Action |\n|---|---|\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\n\n## Output Format\n\n```text\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\n```\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\n\n---\n\n## 中文摘要\n\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.5:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.5\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1788837129395\n}\n\nFile v1.1.5:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer that checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces, then outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nContent, marketing, and product teams use this skill to review finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, and press releases against private compliance rules before publication. It reports citation, customer redaction, product naming, competitor, internal-information, formatting, and content-quality issues without changing the original draft.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: Generic trigger phrases may cause the skill to be selected for ordinary review requests.\n\nMitigation: Invoke the skill explicitly for pre-publication compliance review and confirm the selected draft and compliance profile before use.\n\nRisk: Missing or stale compliance profiles can make brand, sensitive-term, customer-redaction, competitor, or product-status checks incomplete.\n\nMitigation: Provide the current private compliance profile before review and treat missing profile sections as incomplete checks.\n\nRisk: Unverifiable claims or unavailable knowledge-base sections can lead to false confidence in a publication draft.\n\nMitigation: Require approved sources for data claims and mark unavailable source evidence as unverifiable in the pre-review report.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, files, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown report saved as a compliance-review file, with an execution summary and issue-level recommendations.]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [The skill is designed to inspect and report only; it does not modify the reviewed draft.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.1.5 (source: release evidence and skill frontmatter)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v1.1.3: 3 files, 5449 bytes\n\nFiles: skill-card.md (2328b), SKILL.md (8401b), _meta.json (143b)\n\nFile v1.1.3:SKILL.md\n\n---\nslug: tcms-compliance-reviewer\ndisplayName: Tcms Compliance Reviewer\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\nversion: \"1.1.3\"\nnot_for:\n  - Modifying the draft (review and fix suggestions only)\n  - Legal review or contract compliance (content compliance focus)\n  - Post-publication monitoring or takedown decisions\n  - Fact-checking primary sources (citation-format and naming focus)\ndescription: |\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\ndescription_zh: \"发布前合规审查器：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，输出预审报告与修改建议，不改原文。\"\n\nread_when:\n  - 预审\n  - 审核\n  - 审稿\n  - 终审\n  - review\n  - 检查初稿\n  - fact check\n  - 合规检查\n  - 发布前审核\n  - 发稿前检查\n  - pre-publication review\nmetadata:\n  openclaw:\n    tags:\n      - content-marketing\n      - tech-product\n      - compliance\n      - fact-check\n      - editorial-review\n      - quality-control\n      - b2b\ndisable: false\n---\n\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\n\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\n\n## When to use\n\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\n\n## Do not use\n\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\n\n## Input\n\n```yaml\ndraft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:\n```\n\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\n\n1. Read the article under review.\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\n\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\n\n| # | Check | PASS description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\n\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\n\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\n\nOutput:\n\n```markdown\n# Pre-Review Report\n\n## Summary\n\n| Item | Result | Note |\n|---|---|---|\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n\n## Specific issues\n\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\n\n## Citation verification\n\n| Claim | Source | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n\n## Overall assessment\n\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\n\n## Recommended approval level\n\n- Level and rationale.\n```\n\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\n\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\n\nExecution summary:\n\n```markdown\n## Execution Summary\n- Article reviewed:\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\n- Critical issues:\n```\n\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\n\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\n\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\n\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\n\n## Hard Rules\n\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\n\n## Failure Handling\n\n| Scenario | Action |\n|---|---|\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\n\n## Output Format\n\n```text\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\n```\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\n\n---\n\n## 中文摘要\n\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.3:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.3\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1787551598774\n}\n\nFile v1.1.3:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nContent, marketing, and product teams use this skill to review finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, and press releases before publication. It checks compliance and quality concerns, reports issues, and suggests fixes without modifying the original draft.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill may read unpublished drafts, private compliance profiles, and knowledge-base content.\n\nMitigation: Review workspace access before installation and ensure users understand which private materials may be read during a compliance review.\n\nRisk: Broad trigger phrases may route unrelated review workflows to this skill.\n\nMitigation: Narrow trigger phrases or routing rules when the workspace contains multiple review workflows.\n\nRisk: Compliance findings and fix suggestions may be incomplete or incorrect.\n\nMitigation: Require human confirmation before marking the review complete or using the report for publication approval.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer)\n- [Publisher profile](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report with summary tables, issue lists, citation verification, approval recommendation, and execution summary]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Saves a separate compliance review report and does not modify the reviewed draft.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.1.3 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v1.1.2: 5 files, 6809 bytes\n\nFiles: _meta.json (143b), README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2391b), SKILL.md (8264b)\n\nFile v1.1.2:SKILL.md\n\n---\r\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\r\nversion: \"1.1.2\"\r\ndescription: |\r\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\r\ndescription_zh: \"发布前合规审查器：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，输出预审报告与修改建议，不改原文。\"\r\n\r\nread_when:\r\n  - 预审\r\n  - 审核\r\n  - 审稿\r\n  - 终审\r\n  - review\r\n  - 检查初稿\r\n  - fact check\r\n  - 合规检查\r\n  - 发布前审核\r\n  - 发稿前检查\r\n  - pre-publication review\r\nmetadata:\r\n  openclaw:\r\n    tags:\r\n      - content-marketing\r\n      - tech-product\r\n      - compliance\r\n      - fact-check\r\n      - editorial-review\r\n      - quality-control\r\n      - b2b\r\ndisable: false\r\n---\r\n\r\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\r\n\r\n## When to use\r\n\r\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\r\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\r\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\r\n\r\n## Do not use\r\n\r\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\r\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\r\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Input\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\ndraft_path:\r\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\r\ncompliance_profile: path or object\r\n  - brand_rules:\r\n  - sensitive_terms:\r\n  - product_public_status:\r\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\r\n  - competitor_policy:\r\nreview_requested_by:\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\r\n\r\n## Workflow\r\n\r\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\r\n\r\n1. Read the article under review.\r\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\r\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\r\n\r\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\r\n\r\n| # | Check | PASS description |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\r\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\r\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\r\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\r\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\r\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\r\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\r\n\r\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\r\n\r\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\r\n\r\nOutput:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n# Pre-Review Report\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n| Item | Result | Note |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n\r\n## Specific issues\r\n\r\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\r\n\r\n## Citation verification\r\n\r\n| Claim | Source | Status |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n\r\n## Overall assessment\r\n\r\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\r\n\r\n## Recommended approval level\r\n\r\n- Level and rationale.\r\n```\r\n\r\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\r\n\r\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\r\n\r\nExecution summary:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n## Execution Summary\r\n- Article reviewed:\r\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\r\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\r\n- Critical issues:\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\r\n\r\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\r\n\r\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\r\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\r\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\r\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\r\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\r\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\r\n\r\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\r\n\r\n## Hard Rules\r\n\r\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\r\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\r\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\r\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\r\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\r\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\r\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Failure Handling\r\n\r\n| Scenario | Action |\r\n|---|---|\r\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\r\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\r\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\r\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\r\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\r\n\r\n## Output Format\r\n\r\n```text\r\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Verification\r\n\r\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\r\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\r\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\r\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\r\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n## 中文摘要\r\n\r\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.2:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.1.2:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1786084771287\n}\n\nFile v1.1.2:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.1.2:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nBrand-side content marketing, editorial, and compliance teams use this skill to review finished technology-product drafts before publication. It checks factual support, customer redaction, product naming, competitor references, internal information, formatting, and content quality, then returns a pre-review report with fixes and an approval recommendation.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: Generic activation phrases such as review can invoke the skill during ordinary review requests.\n\nMitigation: Use TCMS, compliance, or pre-publication context when requesting this skill, and confirm the requested review scope before relying on the report.\n\nRisk: Compliance checks depend on the supplied brand rules, sensitive-term lists, product-public-status data, customer-redaction policy, competitor policy, and knowledge-base sources.\n\nMitigation: Provide current compliance profiles and approved sources; mark missing or unavailable references as incomplete or unverifiable in the report.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer)\n- [README.md](artifact/README.md)\n- [README_zh.md](artifact/README_zh.md)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance, Files]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report with summary tables, issue bullets, citation verification, approval recommendation, and execution summary]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Reports issues and suggested fixes without modifying the original draft.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.1.2 (source: SKILL.md frontmatter and release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v1.1.1: 5 files, 6883 bytes\n\nFiles: _meta.json (143b), README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2792b), SKILL.md (8061b)\n\nFile v1.1.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\r\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\r\nversion: \"1.1.1\"\r\ndescription: |\r\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\r\nread_when:\r\n  - 预审\r\n  - 审核\r\n  - 审稿\r\n  - 终审\r\n  - review\r\n  - 检查初稿\r\n  - fact check\r\n  - 合规检查\r\n  - 发布前审核\r\n  - 发稿前检查\r\n  - pre-publication review\r\nmetadata:\r\n  openclaw:\r\n    tags:\r\n      - content-marketing\r\n      - tech-product\r\n      - compliance\r\n      - fact-check\r\n      - editorial-review\r\n      - quality-control\r\n      - b2b\r\ndisable: false\r\n---\r\n\r\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\r\n\r\n## When to use\r\n\r\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\r\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\r\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\r\n\r\n## Do not use\r\n\r\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\r\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\r\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Input\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\ndraft_path:\r\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\r\ncompliance_profile: path or object\r\n  - brand_rules:\r\n  - sensitive_terms:\r\n  - product_public_status:\r\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\r\n  - competitor_policy:\r\nreview_requested_by:\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\r\n\r\n## Workflow\r\n\r\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\r\n\r\n1. Read the article under review.\r\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\r\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\r\n\r\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\r\n\r\n| # | Check | PASS description |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\r\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\r\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\r\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\r\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\r\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\r\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\r\n\r\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\r\n\r\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\r\n\r\nOutput:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n# Pre-Review Report\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n| Item | Result | Note |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n\r\n## Specific issues\r\n\r\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\r\n\r\n## Citation verification\r\n\r\n| Claim | Source | Status |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n\r\n## Overall assessment\r\n\r\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\r\n\r\n## Recommended approval level\r\n\r\n- Level and rationale.\r\n```\r\n\r\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\r\n\r\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\r\n\r\nExecution summary:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n## Execution Summary\r\n- Article reviewed:\r\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\r\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\r\n- Critical issues:\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\r\n\r\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\r\n\r\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\r\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\r\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\r\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\r\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\r\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\r\n\r\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\r\n\r\n## Hard Rules\r\n\r\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\r\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\r\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\r\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\r\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\r\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\r\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Failure Handling\r\n\r\n| Scenario | Action |\r\n|---|---|\r\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\r\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\r\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\r\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\r\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\r\n\r\n## Output Format\r\n\r\n```text\r\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Verification\r\n\r\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\r\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\r\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\r\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\r\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n## 中文摘要\r\n\r\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.1:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.1.1:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.1\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1785686257636\n}\n\nFile v1.1.1:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.1.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer that checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces, then outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nContent marketing and publication teams use this skill to review finished technology product drafts before release. It checks compliance-sensitive issues such as factual traceability, product naming, customer redaction, competitor references, internal information, formatting, and AI-like language, then reports issues and suggested fixes without changing the original draft. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Broad trigger phrases such as \"review\" may activate the skill for work outside publication compliance review. <br>\nMitigation: Invoke it deliberately for pre-publication compliance review with a draft path and compliance profile, and prefer specific activation phrases for publication review. <br>\nRisk: Review quality depends on current brand rules, sensitive-term lists, product-public-status data, customer-redaction rules, and approved sources. <br>\nMitigation: Provide an up-to-date compliance profile and knowledge base, and require human confirmation before marking the review complete. <br>\nRisk: The generated report may contain incorrect or misleading compliance guidance if source evidence is missing or ambiguous. <br>\nMitigation: Treat missing sources as unverifiable, review the generated report path, and have a qualified reviewer confirm findings before publication decisions. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [analysis, markdown, files, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown review report saved to content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Does not modify the original draft; includes issue locations, suggested fixes, citation verification, overall assessment, approval level, and execution summary.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.1.1 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.1.0: 5 files, 6783 bytes\n\nFiles: README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2802b), SKILL.md (7873b), _meta.json (143b)\n\nFile v1.1.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\r\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\r\nversion: \"1.1.0\"\r\ndescription: |\r\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\r\nread_when:\r\n  - 预审\r\n  - 审核\r\n  - 审稿\r\n  - 终审\r\n  - review\r\n  - 检查初稿\r\n  - fact check\r\n  - 合规检查\r\n  - 发布前审核\r\n  - 发稿前检查\r\n  - pre-publication review\r\ndisable: false\r\n---\r\n\r\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\r\n\r\n## When to use\r\n\r\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\r\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\r\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\r\n\r\n## Do not use\r\n\r\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\r\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\r\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Input\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\ndraft_path:\r\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\r\ncompliance_profile: path or object\r\n  - brand_rules:\r\n  - sensitive_terms:\r\n  - product_public_status:\r\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\r\n  - competitor_policy:\r\nreview_requested_by:\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\r\n\r\n## Workflow\r\n\r\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\r\n\r\n1. Read the article under review.\r\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\r\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\r\n\r\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\r\n\r\n| # | Check | PASS description |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\r\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\r\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\r\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\r\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\r\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\r\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\r\n\r\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\r\n\r\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\r\n\r\nOutput:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n# Pre-Review Report\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n| Item | Result | Note |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n\r\n## Specific issues\r\n\r\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\r\n\r\n## Citation verification\r\n\r\n| Claim | Source | Status |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n\r\n## Overall assessment\r\n\r\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\r\n\r\n## Recommended approval level\r\n\r\n- Level and rationale.\r\n```\r\n\r\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\r\n\r\nSave to: `content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\r\n\r\nExecution summary:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n## Execution Summary\r\n- Article reviewed:\r\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\r\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\r\n- Critical issues:\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Pre-publish strengthened checks (backstop for high-frequency rework points)\r\n\r\nBeyond the seven general checks, run mandatory checks on high-frequency rework points (corresponding to the P0/P1 items found by the claim / cross-material governance lines). These are also the pre-publish backstop for `content-writer`'s expression red lines:\r\n\r\n- **P0 naming consistency**: the tech-blog product's external name must match verbatim the already-published authoritative materials of the same campaign (press release / official site / official account); must not add its own version number or suffix (e.g. if the external name is uniformly \"X\", the blog must not write \"X 2.0\"). Inconsistency = FAIL.\r\n- **P0 meta-language / self-reference**: sentences that break the frame — \"this article…\", \"the press release makes it clear that…\", \"deserves its own section\", \"back to the overall narrative\" — = FAIL; replace with a direct content transition.\r\n- **P0 business jargon**: four-character slogans like \"多、快、好、省\" = FAIL; rewrite in engineering dimensions (load coverage / execution efficiency / operations experience / resource efficiency).\r\n- **P1 absolutist phrasing**: scan for \"naturally connected / seamless / inevitable / certain / zero\" etc.; require a bounded qualifier instead.\r\n- **P1 out-of-scope scenarios**: landing industries/scenarios without a knowledge-base or published-article source must be marked `[needs confirmation]` or removed; do not list scenarios from memory (e.g. an industry/scenario needs internal-source backing).\r\n- **P1 faithful transcription vs quantified claims**: infrastructure capabilities backed by an architecture diagram may be stated; quantified speedup multiples without an official figure = FAIL.\r\n\r\n> When publishing externally and multiple materials on the same topic already exist, after a PASS pre-review it is recommended to also run the three-piece governance line — `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` — before finalizing.\r\n\r\n## Hard Rules\r\n\r\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\r\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\r\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\r\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\r\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\r\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\r\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Failure Handling\r\n\r\n| Scenario | Action |\r\n|---|---|\r\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\r\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\r\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\r\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\r\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\r\n\r\n## Output Format\r\n\r\n```text\r\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Verification\r\n\r\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\r\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\r\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\r\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\r\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n## 中文摘要\r\n\r\nContent Compliance Reviewer 是发布前合规与质量预审 Skill：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品口径、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，只报告不修改原文。除七项通用检查外，对高发返工点做强制兜底（P0 命名一致性/元语言/商务腔，P1 绝对化/超范围场景/量化断言），与 content-writer 的表达红线前后呼应。多份同主题物料对外发布前，建议再跑 claim-to-source + cross-material + tech-content-review 三件套治理线。\n\nFile v1.1.0:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.1.0:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1785473460916\n}\n\nFile v1.1.0:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.1.0:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nBrand-side technology marketing teams use this skill to review finished blogs, case studies, product updates, and press releases before publication. It checks compliance and quality issues such as factual traceability, customer redaction, product naming, competitor references, internal information, formatting, and AI-like phrasing, then returns a report without modifying the draft. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: The skill reads drafts and supplied compliance or knowledge-base references, which may include sensitive brand, customer, or pre-publication content. <br>\nMitigation: Use it only in the intended brand-side pre-publication review workflow and provide the narrowest relevant compliance profile and references. <br>\nRisk: Broad trigger phrases such as review or fact check may route ordinary editing or research requests to this compliance reviewer. <br>\nMitigation: Narrow trigger phrases or invocation guidance so the skill is used for explicit pre-publication compliance review requests. <br>\nRisk: The skill produces review guidance and approval recommendations that still require human judgment before publication. <br>\nMitigation: Have an authorized reviewer confirm findings, sources, and approval level before considering the review complete. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer) <br>\n- [ClawHub publisher profile](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report with summary tables, issue notes, citation verification, overall assessment, recommended approval level, and execution summary.] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [The skill reports findings and suggestions only; it does not modify the original draft.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.1.0 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.0.2: 5 files, 6505 bytes\n\nFiles: README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2355b), SKILL.md (6638b), _meta.json (143b)\n\nFile v1.0.2:SKILL.md\n\n---\r\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\r\ndescription: |\r\n  For tech-product marketing teams — pre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases), checking facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, and internal-info leaks.\r\n  Reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft.\r\n  Not for monthly performance analysis — use tcms-performance-analyst for that.\r\nread_when:\r\n  - 预审\r\n  - 审核\r\n  - 审稿\r\n  - 终审\r\n  - review\r\n  - 检查初稿\r\n  - fact check\r\n  - 合规检查\r\n  - 发布前审核\r\n  - 发稿前检查\r\n  - pre-publication review\r\nversion: 1.0.2\r\ndisable: false\r\n---\r\n\r\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n对完稿后的技术博客、客户案例、产品解读或新闻稿做发布前合规与质量预审。只检查和报告，不自动修改原文。\r\n\r\n## When to use\r\n\r\n- 需要检查文章中的数据事实、客户脱敏、产品正式名称、竞品规则和内部信息。\r\n- 需要在发布前确认引用追溯和格式。\r\n- 需要生成带审批建议的预审报告。\r\n\r\n## Do not use\r\n\r\n- 月度效果分析和内容复盘，由 `content-performance-analyst` 处理。\r\n- 自动修改或重写原文；仅提供位置和修改建议。\r\n- 初次写作或渠道适配。\r\n\r\n## Input\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\ndraft_path:\r\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\r\ncompliance_profile: path or object\r\n  - brand_rules:\r\n  - sensitive_terms:\r\n  - product_public_status:\r\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\r\n  - competitor_policy:\r\nreview_requested_by:\r\n```\r\n\r\n合规 profile 由项目私有配置提供。通用引擎使用逻辑字段；真实路径和规则表留私有层。\r\n\r\n## Workflow\r\n\r\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\r\n\r\n1. 读取待审文章。\r\n2. 读取合规 profile 中的品牌规则、敏感词表、产品公开状态和客户脱敏规则。\r\n3. 按需查找知识库中对应产品章节，用于验证数据出处。\r\n\r\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\r\n\r\n| # | Check | PASS description |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\r\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\r\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\r\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\r\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\r\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\r\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\r\n\r\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\r\n\r\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\r\n\r\nOutput:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n# Pre-Review Report\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n| Item | Result | Note |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n\r\n## Specific issues\r\n\r\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\r\n\r\n## Citation verification\r\n\r\n| Claim | Source | Status |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n\r\n## Overall assessment\r\n\r\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\r\n\r\n## Recommended approval level\r\n\r\n- Level and rationale.\r\n```\r\n\r\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\r\n\r\n保存到：`content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\r\n\r\n执行摘要：\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n## Execution Summary\r\n- Article reviewed:\r\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\r\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\r\n- Critical issues:\r\n```\r\n\r\n## 发布前强化检查（高发返工点兜底）\r\n\r\n在七项通用检查之外，对高发返工点做强制检查（对应 claim / cross-material 治理线发现的 P0/P1）。这些也是 `content-writer` 表达红线的发布前兜底：\r\n\r\n- **P0 命名一致性**：技术博客产品对外名必须与同 campaign 已发布物料（新闻稿/官网/公众号）逐字一致；不得擅自加版本号/后缀（如对外统一叫 X，博客不得写\"X 2.0\"）。不一致即 FAIL。\r\n- **P0 元语言/自我指涉**：出现\"本文…\"\"新闻稿把…讲清楚了\"\"值得单独展开\"\"回到…整体叙事\"等跳出框架句式即 FAIL，改为内容直接过渡。\r\n- **P0 商务腔**：出现\"多、快、好、省\"等四字口号即 FAIL，改工程维度（负载覆盖/执行效率/运维体验/资源效率）。\r\n- **P1 绝对化表述**：扫描\"天然打通/无缝/必然/一定/零\"等绝对化词，要求改为带边界的定性表述。\r\n- **P1 超范围场景**：落地行业/场景若无知识库或已发文章出处，标 `[需确认]` 或删除，不得凭印象列举（如某行业/场景需有内部来源背书）。\r\n- **P1 忠实转录 vs 量化断言**：基础设施能力有架构图背书可写；量化加速倍数无官方口径标 FAIL。\r\n\r\n> 涉及对外发布且同主题已有多份物料时，预审 PASS 后建议追加 `claim-to-source-auditor` + `cross-material-consistency-auditor` + `tech-content-review-panel` 三件套治理线，再定稿。\r\n\r\n## Hard Rules\r\n\r\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\r\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\r\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\r\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\r\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\r\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\r\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Failure Handling\r\n\r\n| Scenario | Action |\r\n|---|---|\r\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\r\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\r\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\r\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\r\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\r\n\r\n## Output Format\r\n\r\n```text\r\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Verification\r\n\r\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\r\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\r\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\r\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\r\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\n\nFile v1.0.2:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.0.2:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1785467473175\n}\n\nFile v1.0.2:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.0.2:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nFor tech-product marketing teams, this skill reviews brand-side drafts before publication for factual support, customer redaction, product naming, competitor references, internal-information exposure, and content quality without editing the original draft. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nMarketing, content, and compliance reviewers use this skill to evaluate completed tech-product blogs, case studies, product updates, and press releases before publication. It produces a pre-review report with pass/fix/fail findings, citation checks, approval guidance, and suggested fixes while preserving the source draft. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Generic review and fact-check trigger phrases could activate the skill for ordinary review requests outside its intended scope. <br>\nMitigation: Invoke it only for explicit marketing draft compliance review and provide the intended draft path and compliance profile. <br>\nRisk: The skill may evaluate drafts against incomplete or outdated compliance profiles or knowledge-base references. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the compliance profile and approved source set are current before relying on publishability, citation, customer-redaction, or product-naming findings. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Analysis, Markdown, Files, Guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report saved as a separate file] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Includes inspection summary, specific issues, citation verification, overall assessment, recommended approval level, and execution summary.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.2 (source: server release evidence and skill frontmatter) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.0.1: 5 files, 5602 bytes\n\nFiles: README_zh.md (928b), README.md (955b), skill-card.md (2473b), SKILL.md (5138b), _meta.json (143b)\n\nFile v1.0.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\r\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\r\ndescription: |\r\n  For tech-product marketing teams — pre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases), checking facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, and internal-info leaks.\r\n  Reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft.\r\n  Not for monthly performance analysis — use tcms-performance-analyst for that.\r\nread_when:\r\n  - 预审\r\n  - 审核\r\n  - 审稿\r\n  - 终审\r\n  - review\r\n  - 检查初稿\r\n  - fact check\r\n  - 合规检查\r\n  - 发布前审核\r\n  - 发稿前检查\r\n  - pre-publication review\r\nversion: 1.0.1\r\ndisable: false\r\n---\r\n\r\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n对完稿后的技术博客、客户案例、产品解读或新闻稿做发布前合规与质量预审。只检查和报告，不自动修改原文。\r\n\r\n## When to use\r\n\r\n- 需要检查文章中的数据事实、客户脱敏、产品正式名称、竞品规则和内部信息。\r\n- 需要在发布前确认引用追溯和格式。\r\n- 需要生成带审批建议的预审报告。\r\n\r\n## Do not use\r\n\r\n- 月度效果分析和内容复盘，由 `content-performance-analyst` 处理。\r\n- 自动修改或重写原文；仅提供位置和修改建议。\r\n- 初次写作或渠道适配。\r\n\r\n## Input\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\ndraft_path:\r\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\r\ncompliance_profile: path or object\r\n  - brand_rules:\r\n  - sensitive_terms:\r\n  - product_public_status:\r\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\r\n  - competitor_policy:\r\nreview_requested_by:\r\n```\r\n\r\n合规 profile 由项目私有配置提供。通用引擎使用逻辑字段；真实路径和规则表留私有层。\r\n\r\n## Workflow\r\n\r\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\r\n\r\n1. 读取待审文章。\r\n2. 读取合规 profile 中的品牌规则、敏感词表、产品公开状态和客户脱敏规则。\r\n3. 按需查找知识库中对应产品章节，用于验证数据出处。\r\n\r\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\r\n\r\n| # | Check | PASS description |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\r\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\r\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\r\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\r\n| 5 | Internal information | No internal code names, project names or unconfirmed capabilities |\r\n| 6 | Format and structure | Word count, brand title, closing and citation table comply |\r\n| 7 | Content quality | Core message is clear, logic is consistent, no obvious AI template language |\r\n\r\nEvery item gets: `PASS` / `NEEDS_FIX` / `FAIL`.\r\n\r\n### Step 3: [LLM] Generate pre-review report\r\n\r\nOutput:\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n# Pre-Review Report\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n| Item | Result | Note |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\r\n\r\n## Specific issues\r\n\r\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\r\n\r\n## Citation verification\r\n\r\n| Claim | Source | Status |\r\n|---|---|---|\r\n\r\n## Overall assessment\r\n\r\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\r\n\r\n## Recommended approval level\r\n\r\n- Level and rationale.\r\n```\r\n\r\n### Step 4: [Deterministic] Save\r\n\r\n保存到：`content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md`\r\n\r\n执行摘要：\r\n\r\n```markdown\r\n## Execution Summary\r\n- Article reviewed:\r\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\r\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\r\n- Critical issues:\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Hard Rules\r\n\r\n1. Never modify the original draft. Only report issues and suggestions.\r\n2. Data checks must reference an approved source. Missing sources receive a fail.\r\n3. Any real customer name hit is an automatic fail.\r\n4. Unconfirmed product capabilities receive a needs-fix.\r\n5. Competitor named references must be flagged.\r\n6. Internal code names or project names are an automatic fail.\r\n7. Human confirmation required before marking the review complete and handing off to adaptation.\r\n\r\n## Failure Handling\r\n\r\n| Scenario | Action |\r\n|---|---|\r\n| Draft not found | List available drafts for the user |\r\n| Compliance profile missing | Warn and skip brand/sensitive-term checks; flag as incomplete |\r\n| Knowledge-base section unavailable | Mark all data items as unverifiable |\r\n| Draft has no citation table | Mark as recommended |\r\n| Competitor, customer or product policy changed | Request updated profile before proceeding |\r\n\r\n## Output Format\r\n\r\n```text\r\ncontent/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md\r\n```\r\n\r\n## Verification\r\n\r\n- [ ] All seven inspection items evaluated.\r\n- [ ] Every data claim checked against approved source.\r\n- [ ] Every real customer name flagged.\r\n- [ ] Report saved without modifying the original draft.\r\n- [ ] Execution summary includes next action.\n\nFile v1.0.1:README.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)\n\nFile v1.0.1:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.1\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1785410437301\n}\n\nFile v1.0.1:README_zh.md\n\n# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）\n\nFile v1.0.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nReviews brand-side tech-product marketing drafts before publication for factual support, customer redaction, product naming, competitor references, internal information leaks, and content-quality issues. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nTech-product marketing teams use this skill to review blogs, case studies, product write-ups, and press releases before publication. It produces issue findings, suggested fixes, citation checks, overall assessment, and approval guidance without modifying the original draft. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: The skill may activate on generic review wording. <br>\nMitigation: Use it only when requesting a marketing compliance review, and provide only the draft, compliance profile, and knowledge-base references needed for that review. <br>\nRisk: Drafts and compliance profiles may contain sensitive customer, product, or internal information. <br>\nMitigation: Limit inputs to the minimum required review materials and keep the generated report in the intended draft workspace. <br>\nRisk: Claims without approved supporting sources can lead to unreliable publication decisions. <br>\nMitigation: Treat missing sources as failed or unverifiable and require human confirmation before completing the review. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer) <br>\n- [ClawHub publisher profile](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Markdown, Files, Analysis, Guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown report saved as a draft-specific compliance review file] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Includes pass, needs-fix, and fail results; specific issues; citation verification; overall assessment; approval recommendation; and an execution summary.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.1 (source: frontmatter and release evidence) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>","readmeExcerpt":"Skill: tcms-compliance-reviewer Owner: haiyangchenbj Summary: Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. Tags: brand-writing:1.0.2, content-marketing:1.0.2, latest:1.1.6, tech-product:1.0.2 Version history","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"yaml","snippet":"draft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# Pre-Review Report\n\n## Summary\n\n| Item | Result | Note |\n|---|---|---|\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n\n## Specific issues\n\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\n\n## Citation verification\n\n| Claim | Source | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n\n## Overall assessment\n\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\n\n## Recommended approval level\n\n- Level and rationale."},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"## Execution Summary\n- Article reviewed:\n- Results: N pass / M needs-fix / K fail\n- Overall: publishable | minor-fix | major-fix | rewrite\n- Critical issues:"},{"language":"text","snippet":"content/drafts/{original-name}-compliance-review.md"},{"language":"yaml","snippet":"draft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# Pre-Review Report\n\n## Summary\n\n| Item | Result | Note |\n|---|---|---|\n| Customer redaction | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Product name | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Competitor | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Data traceability | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Internal info | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Format | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n| Content quality | PASS/NEEDS_FIX/FAIL | |\n\n## Specific issues\n\n- Location, problem, suggested fix for each NEEDS_FIX or FAIL.\n\n## Citation verification\n\n| Claim | Source | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n\n## Overall assessment\n\n- Publishable / Minor fixes / Major revision / Rewrite recommended\n\n## Recommended approval level\n\n- Level and rationale."}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nslug: tcms-compliance-reviewer\ndisplayName: Tcms Compliance Reviewer\nname: tcms-compliance-reviewer\nversion: \"1.1.6\"\nnot_for:\n  - Modifying the draft (review and fix suggestions only)\n  - Legal review or contract compliance (content compliance focus)\n  - Post-publication monitoring or takedown decisions\n  - Fact-checking primary sources (citation-format and naming focus)\ndescription: |\n  Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\ndescription_zh: \"发布前合规审查器：检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息、格式与 AI 痕迹，输出预审报告与修改建议，不改原文。\"\n\nread_when:\n  - 预审\n  - 审核\n  - 审稿\n  - 终审\n  - review\n  - 检查初稿\n  - fact check\n  - 合规检查\n  - 发布前审核\n  - 发稿前检查\n  - pre-publication review\nmetadata:\n  openclaw:\n    tags:\n      - content-marketing\n      - tech-product\n      - compliance\n      - fact-check\n      - editorial-review\n      - quality-control\n      - b2b\ndisable: false\n---\n\n# Content Compliance Reviewer\n\nRuns a pre-publication compliance and quality review on finished tech blogs, customer cases, product updates, or press releases. Only checks and reports — never auto-modifies the original.\n\n## When to use\n\n- Need to check data facts, customer redaction, product official names, competitor rules, and internal information in an article.\n- Need to confirm citation traceability and formatting before publication.\n- Need a pre-review report with an approval recommendation.\n\n## Do not use\n\n- Monthly performance analysis and content retrospectives — handled by `content-performance-analyst`.\n- Auto-modifying or rewriting the original; provide only location and fix suggestions.\n- Initial writing or channel adaptation.\n\n## Input\n\n```yaml\ndraft_path:\narticle_type: tech_blog | case_study | product_update | other\ncompliance_profile: path or object\n  - brand_rules:\n  - sensitive_terms:\n  - product_public_status:\n  - customer_redaction_policy:\n  - competitor_policy:\nreview_requested_by:\n```\n\nThe compliance profile is supplied by the project's private configuration. The generic engine uses logical fields; real paths and rule tables stay in the private layer.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: [Deterministic] Load the draft and reference\n\n1. Read the article under review.\n2. Read the brand rules, sensitive-term list, product-public-status, and customer-redaction rules from the compliance profile.\n3. Look up the corresponding product section in the knowledge base as needed, to verify data provenance.\n\n### Step 2: [LLM] Item-by-item inspection\n\n| # | Check | PASS description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | Customer redaction | No real internal customer name; description cannot identify the customer |\n| 2 | Product formal name | First mention uses the official full name |\n| 3 | Competitor rules | No competitor company or product name |\n| 4 | Data traceability | Each figure can be traced to an approved source |\n| "},{"path":"README.md","content":"# TCMS Compliance Reviewer\r\n\r\n**Part of the `tcms-*` family** — brand-side content skills for tech-product marketing teams.\r\n*Not for neutral third-party industry research — that is `industry-deep-dive-pipeline`'s job.*\r\n\r\n## What it does\r\n\r\nPre-publish compliance and quality review of brand-side drafts (blogs, case studies, product write-ups, press releases) — checks facts, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal-info leaks.\r\n\r\nIt reports issues and fixes only; never auto-edits the original draft. For monthly performance analysis use `tcms-performance-analyst`.\r\n\r\n## Trigger phrases\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## Pipeline position\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner` (brief) → `tcms-writer` (draft) → `tcms-compliance-reviewer` (review) → `tcms-adapter` (channels) → `tcms-performance-analyst` (monthly report)"},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn70yg6zwmkftx4939qrs89awx82rr9a\",\n  \"slug\": \"tcms-compliance-reviewer\",\n  \"version\": \"1.1.6\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1789876535678\n}"},{"path":"README_zh.md","content":"# TCMS Compliance Reviewer（中文说明）\r\n\r\n**`tcms-*` 系列的一员** —— 面向科技产品营销团队的品牌方内容 Skill。\r\n*不是中立第三方产业研究，那是 `industry-deep-dive-pipeline` 的职责。*\r\n\r\n## 功能\r\n\r\n对品牌方稿件（技术博客、客户案例、产品解读、新闻稿）做发布前合规与质量预审——检查事实引用、客户脱敏、产品命名、竞品规则、内部信息泄露。\r\n\r\n只报告问题与修改建议，绝不自动修改原文。月度效果分析请用 `tcms-performance-analyst`。\r\n\r\n## 触发词\r\n\r\n预审, 审核, 审稿, 终审, review, 检查初稿, fact check, 合规检查, 发布前审核, 发稿前检查, pre-publication review\r\n\r\n## 流水线位置\r\n\r\n`tcms-planner`（选题）→ `tcms-writer`（初稿）→ `tcms-compliance-reviewer`（预审）→ `tcms-adapter`（渠道）→ `tcms-performance-analyst`（月度报告）"},{"path":"skill-card.md","content":"## Description:\n\nPre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[haiyangchenbj](https://clawhub.ai/user/haiyangchenbj)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nBrand-side tech-product marketing teams use this skill to review finished blogs, case studies, product updates, and press releases before publication. It checks compliance and quality issues, then produces a separate pre-review report with issue locations, suggested fixes, citation verification, and an approval recommendation.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: Generic review and fact-check triggers may route private drafts, compliance profiles, or knowledge-base material into this workflow.\n\nMitigation: Install and invoke the skill only for intended brand-side pre-publication review, and confirm that access to private compliance profiles is appropriate for the review request.\n\nRisk: Reviews can be incomplete when the compliance profile, product policy, or knowledge-base section is missing or outdated.\n\nMitigation: Treat missing sources as incomplete or unverifiable, request updated profile material, and require human confirmation before handoff.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/haiyangchenbj/skills/tcms-compliance-reviewer)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown pre-review report saved as a separate file]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Does not modify the source draft; report includes pass, needs-fix, or fail results for each check and an execution summary.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.1.6 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment."}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. Skill: tcms-compliance-reviewer Owner: haiyangchenbj Summary: Pre-publication compliance and quality reviewer. Checks factual citations, customer redaction, product naming, competitor rules, internal information, formatting, and AI traces; outputs a pre-review report and fix suggestions without modifying the original. Tags: brand-writing:1.0.2, content-marketing:1.0.2, latest:1.1.6, tech-product:1.0.2 Version history","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":1344,"uniquenessScore":45,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T16:33:44.117Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T21:01:15.284Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}