Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

c-suite-agent-protocol(C SuiteAgent 协议)

c-suite-agent-protocol 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

c-suite-agent-protocol 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 13,286。

总安装 9,517周安装 385GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 2,988核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:c-suite-agent-protocol(C SuiteAgent 协议)
来源仓库:https://github.com/alirezarezvani/c-suite-agent-protocol
安装命令:
openclaw skills install c-suite-agent-protocol
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install c-suite-agent-protocol

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

C-Suite Agent Protocol 技能用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合快速定位候选结果。适用于 C 级代理团队的通信协议定义,包括调用语法和隔离规则。定义代理间通信的格式、循环预防和响应规范,提升团队协作效率。

安装命令为 openclaw skills install c-suite-agent-protocol,需确认权限范围。建议在使用前核验是否会触发联网或文件读写操作。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install c-suite-agent-protocol;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

c-suite-agent-protocol 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install c-suite-agent-protocol。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

c-suite-agent-protocol 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

c-suite-agent-protocol 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

c-suite-agent-protocol 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

c-suite-agent-protocol 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 9,517 次,近一周安装 385 次,下载 2,988 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

c-suite-agent-protocol 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
c-suite-agent-protocol

C SuiteAgent 协议 · 本页

9,517—只读MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
agent-protocol
description
Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
license
MIT
metadata
version
1.0.0
author
Alireza Rezvani
category
c-level
domain
agent-orchestration
updated
2026-03-05
frameworks
invocation-patterns

Inter-Agent Protocol

How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.

Keywords

agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol

Invocation Syntax

Any agent can query another using:

[INVOKE:role|question]

Examples:

[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]
[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]
[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]
[INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]

Valid roles: ceo, cfo, cro, cmo, cpo, cto, chro, coo, ciso

Response Format

Invoked agents respond using this structure:

[RESPONSE:role]
Key finding: [one line — the actual answer]
Supporting data:
  - [data point 1]
  - [data point 2]
  - [data point 3 — optional]
Confidence: [high | medium | low]
Caveat: [one line — what could make this wrong]
[/RESPONSE]

Example:

[RESPONSE:cfo]
Key finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.
Supporting data:
  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)
  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months
  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that target
Confidence: medium
Caveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.
[/RESPONSE]

Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)

These rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.

Rule 1: No Self-Invocation

An agent cannot invoke itself.

❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED

Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2

Chains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.

✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)
❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)

Rule 3: No Circular Calls

If agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.

✅ CRO → CFO → CMO
❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)

Rule 4: Chain Tracking

Each invocation carries its call chain. Format:

[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]

Agents check this chain before responding with another invocation.

When blocked: Return this instead of invoking:

[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]
State assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]

Isolation Rules

Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)

NO invocations allowed. Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.

  • Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink
  • Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period
  • If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with [ASSUMPTION: ...]

Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)

Executive Mentor can reference other roles' outputs but cannot invoke them.

  • Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests
  • Allowed: "The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data"
  • Not allowed: [INVOKE:cfo|...] during critique phase

Outside Board Meetings

Invocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.

When to Invoke vs When to Assume

Invoke when:

  • The question requires domain-specific data you don't have
  • An error here would materially change the recommendation
  • The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)

Assume when:

  • The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical
  • You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)
  • The chain is already at depth 2
  • The question is minor compared to your main analysis

When assuming, always state it:

[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]

Conflict Resolution

When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:

  1. Flag the conflict explicitly:
   [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]
  1. State the resolution approach:

- Conservative: use the worse case - Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores - Escalate: flag for human decision

  1. Never silently pick one — surface the conflict to the user.

Broadcast Pattern (Crisis / CEO)

CEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:

[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]

Responses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.

Quick Reference

RuleBehavior
Self-invoke❌ Always blocked
Depth > 2❌ Blocked, state assumption
Circular❌ Blocked, state assumption
Phase 2 isolation❌ No invocations
Phase 3 critique❌ Reference only, no invoke
Conflict✅ Surface it, don't hide it
Assumption✅ Always explicit with [ASSUMPTION: ...]

Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)

No role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.

Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)

Before presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:

SELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:
□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?
  ✅ "ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)"
  ❌ "ARR is around $2M" (no source, vague)

□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?
  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]
  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence

□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?
  🟢 High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources
  🟡 Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty
  🔴 Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis

□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?
  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log
  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly

□ "So What?" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?
  If you can't answer "so what?" in one sentence → cut it

Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)

When a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.

If your recommendation involves...Validate with...They check...
Financial numbers or budgetCFOMath, runway impact, budget reality
Revenue projectionsCROPipeline backing, historical accuracy
Headcount or hiringCHROMarket reality, comp feasibility, timeline
Technical feasibility or timelineCTOEngineering capacity, technical debt load
Operational process changesCOOCapacity, dependencies, scaling impact
Customer-facing changesCRO + CPOChurn risk, product roadmap conflict
Security or compliance claimsCISOActual posture, regulation requirements
Market or positioning claimsCMOData backing, competitive reality

Peer validation format:

[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]
Validated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct
Adjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)
Flagged: 🔴 Missing equity cost in total comp projection
[/PEER-VERIFY]

Skip peer verification when:

  • Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact
  • Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)
  • Founder explicitly asked for a quick take

Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)

For decisions that are irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.

Triggers for pre-screen:

  • Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway
  • Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)
  • Changes company strategy or direction
  • Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)
  • Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)

Pre-screen output:

[CRITIC-SCREEN]
Weakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]
Missing perspective: [What nobody considered]
If wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]
Proceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | 🔴 Rethink
[/CRITIC-SCREEN]

Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)

The loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:

FOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:
1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions
2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts
3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY
4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify

POST-DECISION REVIEW (30/60/90 days):
- Was the recommendation correct?
- What did we miss?
- Update company-context.md with what we learned
- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis

Verification Level by Stakes

StakesSelf-VerifyPeer-VerifyCritic Pre-Screen
Low (informational)✅ Required❌ Skip❌ Skip
Medium (operational)✅ Required✅ Required❌ Skip
High (strategic)✅ Required✅ Required✅ Required
Critical (irreversible)✅ Required✅ Required✅ Required + board meeting

What Changes in the Output Format

The verified output adds confidence and source information:

BOTTOM LINE
[Answer] — Confidence: 🟢 High

WHAT
• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] 🟢
• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] 🟢  
• [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] 🟡

PEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)

User Communication Standard

All C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.

Standard Output (single-role response)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📊 [ROLE] — [Topic]

BOTTOM LINE
[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]

WHAT
• [Finding 1 — most critical]
• [Finding 2]
• [Finding 3]
(Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)

WHY THIS MATTERS
[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]

HOW TO ACT
1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]

⚠️ RISKS (if any)
• [Risk + what triggers it]

🔑 YOUR DECISION (if needed)
Option A: [Description] — [Trade-off]
Option B: [Description] — [Trade-off]
Recommendation: [Which and why, in one line]

📎 DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🚩 [ROLE] — Proactive Alert

WHAT I NOTICED
[What triggered this — specific, not vague]

WHY IT MATTERS
[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]

RECOMMENDED ACTION
[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]

URGENCY: 🔴 Act today | 🟡 This week | ⚪ Next review

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📋 BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]

DECISION REQUIRED
[Frame the decision in one sentence]

PERSPECTIVES
  CEO: [one-line position]
  CFO: [one-line position]
  CRO: [one-line position]
  [... only roles that contributed]

WHERE THEY AGREE
• [Consensus point 1]
• [Consensus point 2]

WHERE THEY DISAGREE
• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y
• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y

CRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)
[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]

RECOMMENDED DECISION
[Clear recommendation with rationale]

ACTION ITEMS
1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]

🔑 YOUR CALL
[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Communication Rules (non-negotiable)

  1. Bottom line first. Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.
  2. Results and decisions only. No process narration ("First I analyzed..."). No thinking out loud.
  3. What + Why + How. Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.
  4. Max 5 bullets per section. Longer = reference doc.
  5. Actions have owners and deadlines. "We should consider" is banned. Who does what by when.
  6. Decisions framed as options. Not "what do you think?" — "Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation."
  7. The founder decides. Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.
  8. Risks are concrete. Not "there might be risks" — "if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z."
  9. No jargon without explanation. If you use a term, explain it on first use.
  10. Silence is an option. If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.

Reference

  • references/invocation-patterns.md — common cross-functional patterns with examples

平台分布

OpenClaw

80.99%
按下载量换算2,420

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills