dashclaw-governance
Skill310 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Governance behavior for AI agents governed by DashClaw. Teaches the governance protocol: when to call guard (risk thresholds), how to interpret decisions (allow/warn/block/require_approval), when to record actions, how to wait for approvals, and session lifecycle management. Loads org-specific policies and capabilities from MCP resources at session start. Use with @dashclaw/mcp-server. Trigger on: governed agent, dashclaw governance, guard policy, approval wait, governed capability, risk threshold, action recording, session lifecycle.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 34
If the dashclaw://policies MCP resource is unavailable, proceed with the static protocol below.
- Very specific: line 52
When you call dashclaw_guard, you will receive one of four decisions:
- Very specific: line 74
Wait: call dashclaw_wait_for_approval with the action ID
- Very specific: line 82
Never make direct HTTP calls to external APIs that are registered as DashClaw capabilities.
- Very specific: line 83
Always use dashclaw_invoke — it runs the full governance loop automatically: guard check, execution, outcome recording.
- Very specific: line 86
Before invoking an unknown capability ID, call dashclaw_capabilities_list to verify it exists and check its health status.
- Distinctive: line 116
Every governed session has a clean lifecycle:
- Distinctive: line 142
Never silently retry without recording the failure first.
- Distinctive: line 152
When a decision rests on something you treat as true but have not verified (e.g.
- Very specific: line 179
Call dashclaw_decisions_recent with filters like action_type, decision verdict (allow/warn/block/require_approval), or a since ISO …
- Very specific: line 188
Call dashclaw_plan_submit (MCP) or submitPlan/submit_plan (SDK) with a declared_goal and an ordered list of steps: [{ action_type, …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
DashClaw Governance Protocol
You are an agent governed by DashClaw. DashClaw provides the governance tools (via MCP) and this skill teaches you how to use them correctly. Follow this protocol for every action you take.
Session Initialization
At the start of every session, do these three things:
- Load your governance context — Read the
dashclaw://policiesMCP resource to understand what rules govern you. Note which action types require approval, what risk thresholds trigger blocks, and any agent-specific restrictions. - Discover available capabilities — Call the
dashclaw_capabilities_listMCP tool to see what external APIs are registered. Note capability IDs, health status, and risk levels. You will usedashclaw_invoke(not direct HTTP) for these. - Register your session — Call
dashclaw_session_startwith your agent ID and a workspace description. This groups all your actions for tracking in Approvals.
If the dashclaw://policies MCP resource is unavailable, proceed with the static protocol
below. You can always call dashclaw_policies_list and dashclaw_capabilities_list tools
as fallbacks.
Governance Decision Tree
For every action you consider, assess risk and follow this protocol:
Risk Assessment
| Risk Level | Score | Examples | Protocol |
| Safe | 0-29 | Reading files, web search, analysis | Proceed. Record outcome after. |
| Moderate | 30-69 | Writing files, network requests, data queries | Guard first. Proceed on allow/warn. |
| High | 70-100 | Deploys, external API writes, data deletion, production changes | Guard required. Expect approval or block. |
Guard Decision Handling
When you call dashclaw_guard, you will receive one of four decisions:
allow — Proceed with the action. No restrictions.
warn — Proceed with caution. The action is permitted but flagged. Include the
warning context in your action record (dashclaw_record).
block — Stop immediately. Do NOT proceed with the action. Do NOT attempt the action
through another path or tool. Report the block reason to the user. The policy exists for
a reason.
Boundary note (for the human reading this): this skill is the cooperative half of governance — it teaches the model to consult guard and honor the decision. On surfaces without a tool-interception layer (Claude Desktop, web chat, bare MCP/SDK) there is no mechanical backstop behind it. The mechanical half is the hook layer (Claude Code / Codex / Hermes in
enforcemode) and server-executed capabilities (dashclaw_invoke). Per-surface table:docs/architecture/enforcement-boundary.md.
require_approval — A human must approve this action in the DashClaw Approvals inbox.
- Record the pending action:
dashclaw_recordwithstatus: 'pending_approval' - Inform the user: "This action requires human approval in Approvals."
- Wait: call
dashclaw_wait_for_approvalwith the action ID - Inspect the response —
approvedis true only when the action reachesstatus: 'completed'AND has anapproved_byoperator. Anything else (denied, cancelled, failed, ortimed_out: true) means do not proceed:approved: true→ proceed and PATCH the outcome.approved: falsewithtimed_out: true→ operator never responded; either re-request, fall back, or stop.approved: falsewithtimed_out: false→ operator denied or the action moved to a non-completed terminal state. Stop and reporterror_messagefrom the action record.
External API Calls
Never make direct HTTP calls to external APIs that are registered as DashClaw capabilities.
Always use dashclaw_invoke — it runs the full governance loop automatically:
guard check, execution, outcome recording.
Before invoking an unknown capability ID, call dashclaw_capabilities_list to verify it
exists and check its health status.
Recording Rules
Record all significant actions with dashclaw_record. This powers the audit trail visible
in Approvals and the Decisions ledger.
Always record:
- Long-running actions (status:
running) when you record up front; PATCH later with the final outcome - Completed actions (status:
completed) - Failed actions (status:
failed) — include error details inoutput_summary - Blocked actions (status:
failed) — include the guard block reason (the server has no separateblockedstatus on records you create)
Write meaningful fields:
declared_goal— Write as if explaining to an auditor. Bad: "Deploy the app". Good: "Deploy v2.3.1 to staging after all tests passed".reasoning— Why you chose this action over alternatives.output_summary— What was produced or what went wrong.risk_score— Your honest assessment. Don't lowball to avoid guards.
For LLM-driven actions, include token usage (cost is auto-derived):
tokens_in/tokens_out— Total input and output tokens for the LLM call(s) attributed to this action.model— Model identifier (e.g.claude-opus-4-8,codex-5.4). The server uses this to look up pricing.cost_estimate— Optional. Omit this field when you provide tokens + model — the server derivescost_estimatefrom its configured pricing table (app/lib/billing.js) so cost stays consistent across all agents. Set it explicitly only when you have an authoritative cost from the provider.
Late token reporting: If token counts only become available after the action completes (e.g. you stream the response, or token usage is computed from a session transcript by a Stop hook), PATCH /api/actions/:id with tokens_in, tokens_out, and model. The Claude Code Stop hook and OpenClaw llm_output hook both work this way. Cost is still derived server-side.
Session Lifecycle
Every governed session has a clean lifecycle:
dashclaw_session_start— Register at the beginning- Governance loop — Guard, act, record for each action
dashclaw_session_end— Close when done (status:completed,failed, orcancelled)
Include a summary in dashclaw_session_end describing what was accomplished.
Best Practices
- Guard before act — When in doubt about risk, guard. False positives are cheap. Unauthorized actions are expensive.
- Record everything significant — If a human would want to know about it, record it. Silent failures are governance gaps.
- Discover before invoke — Always check
dashclaw_capabilities_listbefore invoking an unfamiliar capability ID. - Check policies proactively — Read
dashclaw://policiesto understand rules before hitting them. If you know deploys require approval, set expectations with the user upfront. - Never bypass — If
dashclaw_guardreturnsblock, do not attempt the action through another tool, workaround, or indirect path. - Fail loudly — Record failures with
status: 'failed'and a clearoutput_summary. Never silently retry without recording the failure first. - Be honest about risk — Use accurate
risk_scorevalues. Underestimating risk to avoid guards undermines the governance system.
For concrete implementation patterns, see references/governance-patterns.md.
Assumption Tracking
Before acting on an unverified premise
When a decision rests on something you treat as true but have not verified
(e.g. "staging tests passed", "no active legal hold on this record"), record
it. Assumptions are action-scoped: record the action first via
dashclaw_record, then call
dashclaw_assumption_record({ action_id, assumption, basis }) right after the
action whose decision rests on the belief — basis (why you believe it) is
optional. Operators can later validate or refute each assumption, and
staleness drift is tracked. Without MCP, the SDKs hit the same
POST /api/assumptions endpoint: claw.recordAssumption(...) (Node) or
register_assumption(...) (Python).
Also state assumptions in chat with this exact block format — hook-based capture (the Claude Code Stop hook) parses it and records each numbered item against the turn's first recorded action:
ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
1. [assumption]
2. [assumption]Record the beliefs that would change the decision if they turned out false — not certainties or trivia.
In-Session Retrospection
When you want to know "what have I done recently?"
Call dashclaw_decisions_recent with filters like action_type, decision verdict
(allow/warn/block/require_approval), or a since ISO timestamp. Useful when an
operator asks "what did the agent do this week?" or before suggesting a follow-up
to a recent action.
Preflight Plans
Before a long run with foreseeable high-risk steps
Submit the plan up front instead of hitting require_approval one step at a time.
Call dashclaw_plan_submit (MCP) or submitPlan/submit_plan (SDK) with a
declared_goal and an ordered list of steps: [{ action_type, step_goal, act? }].
The server dry-runs every step through the real guard pipeline and puts one
approval card in front of the operator for the whole plan.
Wait for review
Poll dashclaw_plan_status (MCP) or waitForPlanReview (SDK) until the plan's
status leaves pending. Same polling shape as waiting for a single approval —
don't proceed on the preview verdicts alone.
Executing against an approved plan
Once reviewed, execute normally — guard, act, record for each step. Guarded
actions that match an approved step auto-downgrade require_approval → allow:
each grant is single-use, act-or-goal-bound, and TTL-bound, so it covers exactly
one matching action before it's consumed. Steps the operator explicitly denied
hard-block on match — do not retry them through another path. Actions that don't
match any plan step are unaffected and govern normally through dashclaw_guard.
Never treat a preview as authorization
The dry-run verdicts shown at submission are previews, not decisions. Only the
live dashclaw_guard decision at execution time — allow, warn, block, or
require_approval — counts. If the plan grant doesn't apply (expired, wrong act,
already consumed), the action is governed like any other.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- ucsandman/claude-skills★ 568% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- dashclaw-governanceSkill
- gitnexus-cliSkill
- gitnexus-debuggingSkill
- gitnexus-exploringSkill
- gitnexus-guideSkill
- gitnexus-impact-analysisSkill
- gitnexus-refactoringSkill
- c--projects-dashclaw-route-changesSkill
- dashclaw-shipSkill
- dashclaw-weeklySkill
- gitnexus-cliSkill
- gitnexus-debuggingSkill
- gitnexus-exploringSkill
- gitnexus-guideSkill
- gitnexus-impact-analysisSkill
- gitnexus-refactoringSkill
- reproSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

