Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 效率

isis-analysis(伊斯兰国分析)

isis-analysis 用于补充效率相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接效率相关任务时使用。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。

isis-analysis 是效率类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为调用外部服务;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在效率类的 21,003 个 Skill 里排第 14,895。

总安装 3,256周安装 133GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,053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:isis-analysis(伊斯兰国分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vahagn-madatyan/isis-analysis
安装命令:
openclaw skills install isis-analysis
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 isis-analysis

这个 Skill 是做什么的

效率类 Skill 把重复的整理、汇总、转换工作交给助手完成,减少手工复制粘贴。

分析 IS-IS 路由协议邻接关系与 LSPDB 数据库状态。适用于网络设备故障诊断和多厂商覆盖环境排查场景。支持 NET 地址验证与级别路由检查,提供思科兼容诊断报告。需具备目标设备的只读访问权限方可执行分析命令。isis-analysis 属于效率类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

复杂网络环境下建议先在小范围测试后再全面应用。

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 isis-analysis;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

    它需要调用外部服务,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

isis-analysis 怎么安装?

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

isis-analysis 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。

isis-analysis 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

isis-analysis 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。

isis-analysis 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,256 次,近一周安装 133 次,下载 1,053 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。

isis-analysis 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。

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。
  • 需要处理效率类任务、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。

效率类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
github

GitHub 代码协作 · OpenClaw

7,632,918545需要联网MIT-0通过
nano-pdf

Nano PDF 文档 · OpenClaw

4,249,476231需要联网MIT-0通过
auto-updater

自动更新程序 · OpenClaw

2,964,063386操作浏览器MIT-0通过
video-frames

视频帧 · OpenClaw

2,621,304112需要联网MIT-0通过
gemini

Gemini 助手 · OpenClaw

2,547,39648需要联网MIT-0有提醒
isis-analysis

伊斯兰国分析 · 本页

3,256—调用外部服务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
isis-analysis
description
>-
license
Apache-2.0
metadata
safety
read-only
author
network-security-skills-suite
version
1.0.0
openclaw
{"emoji":"🔍","safetyTier":"read-only","requires":{"bins":["ssh"],"env":[]},"tags":["isis","routing","protocol"],"mcpDependencies":[],"egressEndpoints":[]}

IS-IS Protocol Analysis

Protocol-reasoning-driven analysis skill for IS-IS adjacency formation, LSPDB integrity, level 1/2 routing, and NET address validation. Unlike device health checks that compare counters against thresholds, IS-IS analysis requires interpreting adjacency state machines, validating NET addressing, verifying DIS election, and assessing LSP flooding across the link-state domain.

Commands are labeled [Cisco], [JunOS], or [EOS] where syntax diverges. Unlabeled statements apply to all three vendors.

When to Use

  • IS-IS adjacency not forming or stuck in Init state
  • Unexpected route changes or missing routes in the IS-IS domain
  • Level 1/2 boundary issues — suboptimal routing, missing L1 default, route

leaking not working as intended

  • LSPDB inconsistency — LSP count mismatch between neighbors, unexpected purges,

sequence number anomalies

  • NET address conflict or system ID duplication causing LSP wars
  • Post-change verification of IS-IS configuration (new interfaces, area changes,

metric style migration, authentication rollout)

  • DIS election not converging on broadcast segments

Prerequisites

  • SSH or console access to the router (read-only privilege sufficient)
  • IS-IS process running on the device with at least one active interface
  • Knowledge of expected level topology: which routers are L1-only, L2-only, or

L1/L2, and which areas (area addresses) are in use

  • System IDs and NETs known or documented — NET format is

AFI.areaID.systemID.NSEL (e.g., 49.0001.1921.6800.1001.00)

  • Awareness of configured authentication per level and interface (none, MD5,

HMAC-SHA)

Procedure

Follow this diagnostic flow sequentially. Each step builds on data from prior steps, moving from broad inventory to targeted diagnosis.

Step 1: IS-IS Instance and Interface Inventory

Verify IS-IS is running and confirm which interfaces participate at each level.

[Cisco]

show isis interface brief

[JunOS]

show isis interface

[EOS]

show isis interface brief

Record each interface: level enablement (L1, L2, or L1/L2), circuit type (point-to-point or broadcast), metric, hello interval, and hold time. Compare against expected design — every interface that should participate must appear. An interface missing from output means IS-IS is not enabled on it (missing under the IS-IS router config or interface config). Verify the NET address with show isis protocol (Cisco), show isis overview (JunOS), or show isis summary (EOS) — the NET must be correctly formed and unique.

Step 2: Adjacency Assessment

List all IS-IS adjacencies and interpret their state.

[Cisco]

show isis neighbors

[JunOS]

show isis adjacency

[EOS]

show isis neighbors

Compare the neighbor list against expected topology. For each adjacency, verify:

  • State: Up is healthy; Init means one-way (hellos received but this

router's SNPA/system ID not in the neighbor's hello). Down means no hellos received.

  • Level match: L1 neighbors must share at least one area address. L2

neighbors can be in different areas — only system ID uniqueness is required. An L1-only router will not form L2 adjacency with an L2-only router.

  • Circuit type: On broadcast segments, check DIS (Designated Intermediate

System) election. Unlike OSPF DR/BDR, IS-IS DIS election is preemptive — a new router with higher priority takes over immediately.

  • DIS status: On broadcast segments, identify which router is DIS for each

level. DIS sends CSNPs every 10 seconds and creates the pseudonode LSP.

Step 3: NET Address Validation

Verify NET format and system ID uniqueness across the domain.

[Cisco]

show isis protocol | include NET|System

[JunOS]

show isis overview | match "NET|System"

[EOS]

show isis summary | include NET|System

Validate NET structure:

  • AFI (Authority and Format Identifier): Typically 49 for private IS-IS

domains. Must be consistent within the domain.

  • Area ID: Variable length. All L1 neighbors must share at least one area

address to form L1 adjacency. L1/L2 and L2-only routers can have different area addresses and still form L2 adjacency.

  • System ID: 6 bytes, must be globally unique within the IS-IS domain.

Duplicate system IDs cause LSP wars — both routers originate LSPs with the same system ID but different content, causing continuous purge/regenerate cycles.

  • NSEL (N-Selector): Must be 00 for the router itself. A non-zero NSEL

identifies an upper-layer protocol endpoint, not the router.

Step 4: LSPDB Analysis

Examine the Link-State Protocol Data Unit database for integrity.

[Cisco]

show isis database detail | include LSP|Lifetime|Sequence

[JunOS]

show isis database extensive | match "LSP|Lifetime|Sequence"

[EOS]

show isis database detail | include LSP|Lifetime|Sequence

Assess LSPDB health:

  • LSP count: Compare across neighbors in the same level — counts must match

(LSPDB synchronization invariant). A mismatch indicates flooding failure or partition.

  • Remaining lifetime: Default maximum is 1200 seconds. Originating routers

refresh at 900 seconds (default). An LSP with lifetime near 0 that is not refreshed indicates the originator is unreachable. Lifetime at 0 means the LSP is being purged.

  • Sequence numbers: Must increase monotonically. If the same system ID's

LSP sequence number jumps backward, a router has restarted and is re- originating from a lower sequence number — or there is a system ID conflict.

  • LSP purges: An LSP with remaining lifetime of 0 and empty TLV content is

a purge. Frequent purges for the same system ID indicate instability — either the originator is flapping or two routers share the system ID (LSP war).

  • Overload bit (OL): If set, SPF will not use this router for transit

traffic. Check whether OL is intentional (maintenance, startup delay) or indicates a problem (memory exhaustion).

Step 5: Level 1/2 Routing and Route Leaking

Verify inter-level routing behavior at L1/L2 boundaries.

[Cisco]

show isis rib | include L1|L2|leak

[JunOS]

show isis route | match "L1|L2|leak"

[EOS]

show isis route | include L1|L2|leak

Validate inter-level behavior:

  • L1→L2 redistribution: L1/L2 routers automatically redistribute L1 routes

into L2 by default. Verify L1 prefixes appear in the L2 LSPDB. If missing, check for redistribution filters or route policies on the L1/L2 router.

  • L2→L1 route leaking: Not automatic — requires explicit configuration.

If configured, verify leaked L2 routes appear in the L1 RIB. Missing leaked routes indicate policy misconfiguration or the leak filter is too restrictive.

  • Attached bit: L1/L2 routers set the Attached bit in their L1 LSP. L1-only

routers use this to install a default route toward the nearest L1/L2 router. If no L1/L2 router has the Attached bit set, L1-only routers have no path out of the area. Verify with LSPDB detail — check the ATT flag on L1/L2 router LSPs.

  • Suboptimal routing: L1-only routers always route toward the nearest

L1/L2 router (default route). If there are multiple L1/L2 exit points, traffic may take a suboptimal path. Route leaking L2→L1 with specific prefixes fixes this by giving L1 routers more specific routing information.

Threshold Tables

Operational parameter norms for IS-IS — protocol-level expectations by network type and deployment scale.

Hello and Hold Timer Defaults:

ParameterCisco DefaultJunOS DefaultEOS DefaultNotes
Hello (broadcast)10s9s10sPer-level configurable
Hello (P2P)10s9s10sPer-level configurable
Hold multiplier3× hello3× hello3× helloDead = hello × multiplier
CSNP interval (DIS)10s10s10sOnly DIS sends CSNPs
PSNP interval2s2s2sRequest missing LSPs

LSPDB Norms:

ParameterNormalWarningCritical
LSP max lifetime1200s——
LSP refresh900sMissed refreshLifetime < 300s
LSP remaining lifetime300–1200s60–300s< 60s (near purge)
LSP purge rate0/hour1–5/hour> 5/hour
LSPDB mismatch (neighbors)0 LSP diff1–3 diff> 3 diff
Overload bitClearSet (intentional)Set (unintentional)

SPF Norms:

ParameterNormalWarningCritical
SPF runs (per hour)1–56–20> 20
SPF initial delay50–200ms< 50ms> 5000ms
SPF max hold5000–10000ms< 2000ms> 50000ms
Convergence (single link)< 1s1–5s> 10s

Metric Norms:

Metric StyleRangeNotes
Narrow (original)1–63 per link10-bit path metric max (1023)
Wide (extended)1–16777215 per link32-bit path metric — preferred
TransitionBothDuring narrow→wide migration

Decision Trees

Adjacency Not Forming

IS-IS adjacency not reaching Up state
├── State: Down (no hellos received)
│   ├── Interface up? → Check Layer 1/2 status
│   ├── IS-IS enabled on interface? → Check IS-IS config on both sides
│   ├── Correct circuit type? → P2P interface must match both sides
│   └── Hello reaching peer? → Check ACLs, VLAN, encapsulation
│
├── State: Init (one-way hellos)
│   ├── Level mismatch?
│   │   ├── L1 needs same area → Compare area addresses in NETs
│   │   └── L2 allows different areas → Check both have L2 enabled
│   ├── Hello parameters?
│   │   ├── Authentication mismatch → Verify key/type per level
│   │   └── Hello interval incompatible → Not required to match but
│   │       hold time must exceed remote hello interval
│   ├── Interface type mismatch?
│   │   ├── P2P vs broadcast → Must agree on circuit type
│   │   └── Broadcast → DIS election proceeds after adjacency forms
│   ├── MTU issue? → IS-IS PDUs may be dropped if oversized
│   │   ├── Check interface MTU both sides
│   │   └── IS-IS does not negotiate MTU like OSPF — silent drop
│   └── Circuit type mismatch?
│       ├── L1-only ↔ L2-only → No common level → no adjacency
│       └── L1/L2 ↔ L1 → L1 adjacency forms; L2 does not
│
├── DIS election issue (broadcast only)
│   ├── DIS not elected? → Check priority (highest wins, then SNPA)
│   ├── DIS preemption → New higher-priority router takes DIS immediately
│   │   └── Unlike OSPF DR — IS-IS DIS is preemptive
│   └── Pseudonode LSP missing? → DIS must originate pseudonode LSP
│
└── Adjacency flapping (Up↔Down cycling)
    ├── Hello hold expiry → Check for packet loss or CPU overload
    ├── Authentication key rollover → Verify key transition timing
    └── Interface errors → Check CRC, input errors, drops

LSPDB Inconsistency

LSPDB mismatch or instability detected
├── LSP purge seen (lifetime = 0)
│   ├── System ID conflict? → Two routers with same system ID
│   │   ├── Both originate LSPs → Continuous purge/regenerate cycle
│   │   ├── Sequence numbers jump erratically → Confirms conflict
│   │   └── Fix: assign unique system IDs, check NET addresses
│   ├── Router departed gracefully? → Normal purge after shutdown
│   └── Router crashed? → LSP ages out (1200s) then purges
│
├── LSPDB count mismatch between neighbors
│   ├── MTU preventing LSP flooding? → Large LSPs dropped
│   │   ├── Check interface MTU across path
│   │   └── Enable LSP fragmentation or increase MTU
│   ├── Partition? → L2 backbone split → two independent LSPDBs
│   │   ├── Verify L2 connectivity between all L2 routers
│   │   └── Check for failed L2 link isolating a segment
│   └── Flooding blocked? → Authentication mismatch on one link
│       └── Adjacency up but LSPs rejected due to auth failure
│
├── Overload bit (OL) set
│   ├── Intentional? → Maintenance mode or on-startup timer
│   ├── Memory exhaustion? → Router cannot hold full LSPDB
│   └── Startup delay? → OL set for N seconds after process restart
│
└── Sequence number anomaly
    ├── Backward jump? → Router restarted, re-originating from lower seq
    ├── Rapid increment? → Frequent topology changes triggering re-origination
    └── Stuck at max? → Sequence wrap — extremely rare, requires process restart

Report Template

IS-IS ANALYSIS REPORT
======================
Device: [hostname]
Vendor: [Cisco | JunOS | EOS]
IS-IS Instance: [tag/instance name]
System ID: [system-id]
NET: [full NET address]
Check Time: [timestamp]
Performed By: [operator/agent]

ADJACENCY STATUS:
- Total adjacencies expected: [n]
- Up: [n] | Init: [n] | Down: [n]
- DIS role: [DIS for L1/L2 on segment X, or none]
- Adjacencies requiring attention: [list with states and levels]

LEVEL TOPOLOGY:
- Levels configured: [L1, L2, L1/L2]
- Area addresses: [list]
- Attached bit: [set/clear on L1 LSP]

FINDINGS:
1. [Severity] [Category] — [Description]
   Neighbor/Interface: [identifier]
   Observed: [state or metric]
   Expected: [normal state or value]
   Root Cause: [diagnosis from decision tree]
   Action: [recommended remediation]

LSPDB SUMMARY:
- L1 LSP count: [n] | L2 LSP count: [n]
- LSP purges in last hour: [count — 0 is healthy]
- Overload bit: [set/clear]
- Lifetime anomalies: [any near-expiry LSPs]

ROUTE ANALYSIS:
- L1 routes: [count] | L2 routes: [count]
- Route leaking: [configured/not configured — expected behavior]

RECOMMENDATIONS:
- [Prioritized action list]

NEXT CHECK: [CRITICAL: 1hr, WARNING: 8hr, HEALTHY: 24hr]

Troubleshooting

System ID Conflict (LSP War)

Two routers with the same system ID cause an LSP war — each router originates an LSP with the same system ID but different content. Each purges the other's LSP and regenerates its own, creating continuous churn. Symptoms: rapidly incrementing sequence numbers, frequent purge events, unstable routing. Detect by checking for the same system ID with two different SNPAs or source addresses in adjacency tables. Fix: assign unique system IDs.

Area Mismatch Preventing L1 Adjacency

L1 adjacency requires at least one matching area address in the NET. If two routers have different area addresses and are both L1-only, no adjacency forms. L1/L2 routers with different areas can still form L2 adjacency but not L1. Verify area addresses on both sides. Fix: correct the area address or change one router to L2-only if inter-area routing is the goal.

Metric Style Mismatch (Narrow vs Wide)

A router using narrow metrics (1–63) and a neighbor using wide metrics (1–16777215) may form adjacency but routes may not compute correctly if one side cannot interpret the other's TLVs. During migration, configure both sides for transition mode (advertise both narrow and wide TLVs). Verify with LSPDB detail — check for both old-style and extended IP reachability TLVs.

Authentication Mismatch

IS-IS supports per-level and per-interface authentication. A mismatch prevents adjacency formation (hellos rejected) or LSP flooding (LSPs rejected). Unlike OSPF where auth mismatch stops hellos, IS-IS can have adjacency up but LSP flooding blocked if hello auth succeeds but LSP auth fails. Check auth config at both hello and LSP levels independently.

LSPDB Overload from Excessive Redistribution

Redistributing large external route tables into IS-IS generates many LSPs, increasing LSPDB size, SPF computation time, and flooding overhead. Use route policies to limit redistribution scope. Consider setting the overload bit on non-transit routers that cannot handle the full LSPDB. Monitor LSP fragment count — each router can originate up to 256 LSP fragments (0–255).

平台分布

OpenClaw

94.33%
按下载量换算993

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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