Decide in under 4 minutes whether an OpenClaw skill belongs in sandbox, production review, or the reject pile.
This is a governance gate for skills, connectors, and MCP-style integrations. It is not a malware scanner, static code analyzer, or signature-based security verdict.
This is a governance gate for skills, connectors, and MCP-style integrations. It is not a malware scanner, static code analyzer, or signature-based security verdict.
Use this to classify a proposed OpenClaw skill or connector as approvable with standard controls, sandbox-only, hold for governance review, or reject.
The purpose of this screen is to classify the governance posture quickly, highlight the biggest gaps, and route the organization to the correct next step without giving away the paid implementation layer.
It evaluates whether a proposed OpenClaw skill or connector is governable from a supplier-review standpoint, including provenance, testing, access, rollback, and approval workflow discipline.
Sandbox only does not automatically mean the skill is malicious. It means the evidence and control posture are too weak for normal enterprise rollout.
The missing value is a repeatable supplier-review workflow, retained evidence, approval logic, and policy linkage. That sits in ACT Tier 2, not in a free triage page.
Use the paid bridge when the screening result shows structural control gaps that need policy, procedure, evidence, and implementation ownership rather than another free quiz.
See the paid implementation system for supplier review, evidence, and agentic governance.
Use the broader governance checklist alongside this approval gate.
Read the related due-diligence article that supports the approval workflow.