Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

nm-abstract-escalation-governance(nm 抽象升级治理)

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 是研究检索类 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,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 26,800。

总安装 3,501周安装 143GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,133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
1.8.3

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:nm-abstract-escalation-governance(nm 抽象升级治理)
来源仓库:https://github.com/athola/nm-abstract-escalation-governance
安装命令:
openclaw skills install nm-abstract-escalation-governance
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 nm-abstract-escalation-governance

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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 用于评估是否应升级模型以改进输出质量。适合在性能瓶颈或精度不足时辅助决策模型切换或参数调整。基于上下文和成本效益分析提供升级建议,减少盲目迭代。

安装命令:openclaw skills install nm-abstract-escalation-governance。需结合具体业务指标判断建议有效性,不可完全依赖自动化结论。

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 nm-abstract-escalation-governance;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

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 怎么安装?

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

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,501 次,近一周安装 143 次,下载 1,133 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。

nm-abstract-escalation-governance 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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。

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
nm-abstract-escalation-governance

nm 抽象升级治理 · 本页

3,501—调用外部服务MIT-0有提醒

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
escalation-governance
description
Assess whether to escalate models
version
1.8.2
triggers
metadata
{"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/abstract", "emoji": "\�\�"}}
source
claude-night-market
source_plugin
abstract
Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/abstract. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.

Table of Contents

Escalation Governance

Overview

Model escalation (haiku→sonnet→opus) trades speed/cost for reasoning capability. This trade-off must be justified.

Core principle: Escalation is for tasks that genuinely require deeper reasoning, not for "maybe a smarter model will figure it out."

The Iron Law

NO ESCALATION WITHOUT INVESTIGATION FIRST

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Escalation is never a shortcut. If you haven't understood why the current model is insufficient, escalation is premature.

When to Escalate

Legitimate escalation triggers:

TriggerDescriptionExample
Genuine complexityTask inherently requires nuanced judgmentSecurity policy trade-offs
Reasoning depthMultiple inference steps with uncertaintyArchitecture decisions
Novel patternsNo existing patterns applyFirst-of-kind implementation
High stakesError cost justifies capability investmentProduction deployment
Ambiguity resolutionMultiple valid interpretations need weighingSpec clarification

When NOT to Escalate

Illegitimate escalation triggers:

Anti-PatternWhy It's WrongWhat to Do Instead
"Maybe smarter model will figure it out"This is thrashingInvestigate root cause
Multiple failed attemptsSuggests wrong approach, not insufficient capabilityQuestion your assumptions
Time pressureUrgency doesn't change task complexitySystematic investigation is faster
Uncertainty without investigationYou haven't tried to understand yetGather evidence first
"Just to be safe"False safety - wastes resourcesAssess actual complexity

Decision Framework

Before escalating, answer these questions:

1. Have I understood the problem?

  • [ ] Can I articulate why the current model is insufficient?
  • [ ] Have I identified what specific reasoning capability is missing?
  • [ ] Is this a capability gap or a knowledge gap?

If knowledge gap: Gather more information, don't escalate.

2. Have I investigated systematically?

  • [ ] Did I read error messages/outputs carefully?
  • [ ] Did I check for similar solved problems?
  • [ ] Did I form and test a hypothesis?

If not investigated: Complete investigation first.

3. Is escalation the right solution?

  • [ ] Would a different approach work at current model level?
  • [ ] Is the task inherently complex, or am I making it complex?
  • [ ] Would breaking the task into smaller pieces help?

If decomposable: Break down, don't escalate.

4. Can I justify the trade-off?

  • [ ] What's the cost (latency, tokens, money) of escalation?
  • [ ] What's the benefit (accuracy, safety, completeness)?
  • [ ] Is the benefit proportional to the cost?

If not proportional: Don't escalate.

Escalation Protocol

When escalation IS justified:

  1. Document the reason - State why current model is insufficient
  2. Specify the scope - What specific subtask needs higher capability?
  3. Define success - How will you know the escalated task succeeded?
  4. Return promptly - Drop back to efficient model after reasoning task

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"This is complex"Complex for whom? Have you tried?
"Better safe than sorry"Safety theater wastes resources
"I tried and failed"How many times? Did you investigate why?
"The user expects quality"Quality comes from process, not model size
"Just this once"Exceptions become habits
"Time is money"Systematic approach is faster than thrashing

Agent Schema

Agents can declare escalation hints in frontmatter:

model: haiku
escalation:
  to: sonnet                 # Suggested escalation target
  hints:                     # Advisory triggers (orchestrator may override)
    - security_sensitive     # Touches auth, secrets, permissions
    - ambiguous_input        # Multiple valid interpretations
    - novel_pattern          # No existing patterns apply
    - high_stakes            # Error would be costly

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Key points:

  • Hints are advisory, not mandatory
  • Orchestrator has final authority
  • Orchestrator can escalate without hints (broader context)
  • Orchestrator can ignore hints (task is actually simple)

Orchestrator Authority

The orchestrator (typically Opus) makes final escalation decisions:

Can follow hints: When hint matches observed conditions Can override to escalate: When context demands it (even without hints) Can override to stay: When task is simpler than hints suggest Can escalate beyond hint: Go to opus even if hint says sonnet

The orchestrator's judgment, informed by conversation context, supersedes static hints.

Red Flags - STOP and Investigate

If you catch yourself thinking:

  • "Let me try with a better model"
  • "This should be simple but isn't working"
  • "I've tried everything" (but haven't investigated why)
  • "The smarter model will know what to do"
  • "I don't understand why this isn't working"

ALL of these mean: STOP. Investigate first.

Integration with Agent Workflow

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.
Agent starts task at assigned model
├── Task succeeds → Complete
└── Task struggles →
    ├── Investigate systematically
    │   ├── Root cause found → Fix at current model
    │   └── Genuine capability gap → Escalate with justification
    └── Don't investigate → WRONG PATH
        └── "Maybe escalate?" → NO. Investigate first.

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Quick Reference

SituationAction
Task inherently requires nuanced reasoningEscalate
Agent uncertain but hasn't investigatedInvestigate first
Multiple attempts failedQuestion approach, not model
Security/high-stakes decisionEscalate
"Maybe smarter model knows"Never escalate on this basis
Hint fires, task is actually simpleOverride, stay at current model
No hint fires, task is actually complexOverride, escalate

Model Capability Notes

MCP Tool Search (Claude Code 2.1.7+): Haiku models do not support MCP tool search. If a workflow uses many MCP tools (descriptions exceeding 10% of context), those tools load upfront on haiku instead of being deferred. This can consume significant context. Consider escalating to sonnet for MCP-heavy workflows or ensure haiku agents use only native tools (Read, Write, Bash, etc.).

Claude.ai MCP Connectors (Claude Code 2.1.46+): Users with claude.ai connectors configured may have additional MCP tools auto-loaded, increasing the total tool description footprint. This makes it more likely that haiku agents will exceed the 10% tool search threshold. When escalation decisions involve MCP-heavy workflows, factor in claude.ai connector tool count via /mcp.

Effort Controls as Escalation Alternative (Opus 4.6 / Claude Code 2.1.32+): Opus 4.6 introduces adaptive thinking with effort levels (low, medium, high). The max level was removed in 2.1.72; high is now the ceiling. Symbols: ○ (low) ◐ (medium) ● (high). Use /effort auto to reset to default. Before escalating between models, consider whether adjusting effort on the current model would suffice:

Instead of...Consider...When
Haiku → SonnetStay on HaikuTask is still deterministic, just needs more context
Sonnet → OpusOpus@mediumModerate reasoning, not deep architectural analysis
Opus@medium → "maybe try again"Opus@high or "ultrathink"Genuine complexity needing deeper reasoning

Default effort change (2.1.68+): Opus 4.6 now defaults to medium effort for Max and Team subscribers. Use /model to change effort level, or type "ultrathink" in your prompt to enable high effort for the next turn.

Opus 4/4.1 removed (2.1.68+): Opus 4 and 4.1 are no longer available on the first-party API. Users with these models pinned are automatically migrated to Opus 4.6. No action needed for agents using model frontmatter, as the migration is transparent.

Sonnet 4.5 → 4.6 migration (2.1.69+): Sonnet 4.5 users on Pro/Max/Team Premium are automatically migrated to Sonnet 4.6. Agent model frontmatter referencing Sonnet resolves transparently. The --model flags for claude-opus-4-0 and claude-opus-4-1 now correctly resolve to Opus 4.6 instead of deprecated versions.

Effort parameter fix (2.1.70+): Fixed API 400 error This model does not support the effort parameter when using custom Bedrock inference profiles or non-standard Claude model identifiers. Effort controls now work reliably across all deployment configurations.

Default Opus 4.6 on providers (2.1.73+): Bedrock, Vertex, and Microsoft Foundry now default to Opus 4.6 (was Opus 4.1). Subagent model: opus/sonnet/haiku aliases now resolve to the current version on all providers; previously they were silently downgraded to older versions (e.g., Opus 4.1 instead of 4.6). This fix means agent dispatch workflows on third-party providers now match first-party API behavior.

modelOverrides setting (2.1.73+): Maps model picker entries to provider-specific IDs (Bedrock inference profile ARNs, Vertex version names, Foundry deployment names). Use when routing model selections to specific inference profiles. See the model optimization guide for configuration details.

/output-style deprecated (2.1.73+): Use /config instead. Output style is now fixed at session start for better prompt caching.

Full model IDs in agent frontmatter (2.1.74+): Agent model: fields now accept full model IDs (e.g., claude-opus-4-6) in addition to aliases (opus, sonnet, haiku). Previously, full IDs were silently ignored. Agents now accept the same values as --model.

Effort controls do NOT replace the escalation governance framework: they provide an additional axis. The Iron Law still applies: investigate before changing either model or effort level.

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

Command not found Ensure all dependencies are installed and in PATH

Permission errors Check file permissions and run with appropriate privileges

Unexpected behavior Enable verbose logging with --verbose flag

平台分布

OpenClaw

88.79%
按下载量换算1,006

安全审计

VirusTotal

可疑

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。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