Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 效率

ospf-analysis(ospf 分析)

ospf-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。

ospf-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,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在效率类的 21,003 个 Skill 里排第 17,474。

总安装 2,595周安装 106GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 840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:ospf-analysis(ospf 分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vahagn-madatyan/ospf-analysis
安装命令:
openclaw skills install ospf-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 ospf-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。

ospf-analysis 解析 OSPF 邻接状态 LSA 类型与 SPF 计算收敛过程细节。验证区域设计合理性并提供思科多厂商覆盖网络排错建议。输出路由表差异对比与潜在环路风险预警提示信息。依赖路由器 SNMP 或 CLI 接口可达性否则无法整理原始数据。专业网络工程师使用为宜普通运维人员需简化输出可读性。

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 ospf-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

ospf-analysis 怎么安装?

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

ospf-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。

ospf-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。

ospf-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。

ospf-analysis 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,595 次,近一周安装 106 次,下载 840 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。

ospf-analysis 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。
  • 需要处理效率类任务、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。

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
ospf-analysis

ospf 分析 · 本页

2,595—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
ospf-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":["ospf","routing","protocol"],"mcpDependencies":[],"egressEndpoints":[]}

OSPF Protocol Analysis

Protocol-reasoning-driven analysis skill for OSPF adjacency formation, area design, LSDB integrity, and SPF convergence. Unlike device health checks that compare counters against thresholds, OSPF analysis requires interpreting the neighbor FSM, walking the LSA flooding scope, and validating area topology across the control plane.

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

When to Use

  • OSPF neighbor adjacency not forming or stuck in a non-Full state
  • Unexpected route changes or missing routes in the OSPF domain
  • Area design review — backbone connectivity, stub/NSSA configuration audit
  • SPF algorithm running too frequently (unstable link, flapping interface)
  • Post-change verification of OSPF configuration (new interfaces, area changes,

redistribution updates)

  • LSDB growing unexpectedly or LSA age anomalies indicating flooding issues
  • Convergence too slow after planned maintenance or unplanned link failure

Prerequisites

  • SSH or console access to the router (read-only privilege sufficient)
  • OSPF process running on the device with at least one active interface
  • Knowledge of expected area topology: which routers are ABRs/ASBRs, which

interfaces belong to which areas, expected neighbor relationships

  • Awareness of configured authentication type per area (none, simple, MD5)
  • Router IDs known or deterministic (explicit configuration preferred over

auto-selection from loopback/interface addresses)

Procedure

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

Step 1: OSPF Instance and Interface Inventory

Verify OSPF is running and confirm which interfaces participate in each area.

[Cisco]

show ip ospf interface brief

[JunOS]

show ospf interface

[EOS]

show ip ospf interface brief

Record each interface: area assignment, network type (broadcast, point-to-point, NBMA), state (DR, BDR, DROther, Point-to-Point), cost, and hello/dead timers. Compare against expected design — every interface that should participate must appear. An interface missing from output means OSPF is not enabled on it (missing network statement or ip ospf configuration). Verify area assignments match the design — a misassigned area creates a separate adjacency domain.

Step 2: Neighbor State Assessment

List all OSPF neighbors and interpret their FSM state.

[Cisco]

show ip ospf neighbor

[JunOS]

show ospf neighbor

[EOS]

show ip ospf neighbor

Compare the neighbor list against expected topology. Every directly connected OSPF router should appear. For each neighbor not in Full state, the FSM state reveals the failure domain:

  • Down → No hellos received from this neighbor. Causes: interface down,

OSPF not enabled on remote interface, ACL blocking multicast 224.0.0.5/6.

  • Attempt → (NBMA only) Unicast hello sent, no reply. The neighbor is

configured but not responding.

  • Init → Hellos received but this router's RID is not in the neighbor's

hello. Causes: one-way communication — area ID mismatch, authentication mismatch, hello/dead timer mismatch, or MTU preventing return hellos.

  • 2-Way → Bidirectional communication confirmed. On broadcast/NBMA

networks, non-DR/BDR routers remain in 2-Way with each other — this is normal. Only DR/BDR pairs proceed to Full.

  • ExStart → DR/BDR election complete, attempting to establish master/slave

for database exchange. Stuck here = MTU mismatch (most common cause) or DBD packet issues.

  • Exchange → Database Description (DBD) packets being exchanged. Stuck

here = LSDB too large to synchronize or DBD retransmission failures.

  • Loading → LSR/LSU exchange in progress, retrieving missing LSAs. Stuck

here = unstable LSA flooding or peer withdrawing LSAs during sync.

Reference: references/state-machine.md for full FSM detail.

Step 3: Area Design Validation

Verify OSPF area topology matches the intended design.

[Cisco]

show ip ospf | include Area|router

[JunOS]

show ospf overview

[EOS]

show ip ospf | include Area|router

Validate these design invariants:

  • Backbone connectivity: Area 0 must be contiguous. If an ABR has area 0

interfaces that cannot reach other area 0 routers, a virtual link is required. Verify virtual links are up if configured.

  • ABR identification: Any router with interfaces in multiple areas is an

ABR. Confirm ABR count matches design — unexpected ABRs indicate area misconfiguration.

  • ASBR identification: Routers performing redistribution into OSPF. Verify

only intended routers are ASBRs — unplanned redistribution causes routing instability.

  • Stub/NSSA consistency: All routers in a stub or NSSA area must agree on

the area type. A mismatch prevents adjacency formation. NSSA areas generate Type 7 LSAs that ABRs translate to Type 5 — verify translation is occurring.

Step 4: LSDB Analysis

Examine the Link-State Database for integrity and anomalies.

[Cisco]

show ip ospf database database-summary

[JunOS]

show ospf database summary

[EOS]

show ip ospf database database-summary

Check LSA types and counts per area:

  • Type 1 (Router): One per router per area. Count should match router count.
  • Type 2 (Network): One per broadcast/NBMA segment with a DR. Count should

match multi-access segment count.

  • Type 3 (Summary): Generated by ABRs. High count in stub areas indicates

summarization not configured.

  • Type 4 (ASBR Summary): Generated by ABRs to advertise ASBR reachability.
  • Type 5 (External): Generated by ASBRs. Should not appear in stub areas.

Unexpected Type 5 LSAs indicate redistribution issues.

  • Type 7 (NSSA External): NSSA equivalent of Type 5. Translated to Type 5

by the ABR at the NSSA boundary.

Check LSA age: maximum age is 3600 seconds, LSAs are refreshed at 1800 seconds. LSAs with age near 3600 that are not being refreshed indicate an originating router has lost reachability. LSAs with age stuck at 3600 (MaxAge) are being flushed from the LSDB — excessive MaxAge LSAs indicate instability.

Step 5: SPF Convergence Assessment

Evaluate SPF calculation frequency and convergence behavior.

[Cisco]

show ip ospf | include SPF

[JunOS]

show ospf statistics

[EOS]

show ip ospf | include SPF

Check SPF run count and last execution time. Frequent SPF runs (more than once per minute sustained) indicate network instability — a flapping link or interface causing repeated LSA updates. Identify the trigger by checking the LSDB for recently updated LSAs (low age values).

Review SPF throttle timers: initial delay, secondary delay, and maximum hold time. Aggressive timers (low initial delay) provide faster convergence but increase CPU load during instability. Conservative timers protect the CPU but delay convergence.

After a planned change, measure time from the change event to the last SPF run. Compare against the convergence target for the deployment type.

Threshold Tables

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

Hello and Dead Interval Defaults:

Network TypeHello IntervalDead IntervalNotes
Broadcast10s40sDefault for Ethernet
Point-to-Point10s40sDefault for serial/P2P
NBMA30s120sRequires neighbor statements
Point-to-Multipoint30s120sNo DR election

All routers on a segment must agree on hello and dead intervals — mismatch prevents adjacency.

LSA Norms:

ParameterNormalWarningCritical
LSA age0–1800s1800–3500s3600s (MaxAge)
LSA refreshEvery 1800sMissed refreshPersistent MaxAge
Type 1 count per area= router count>2x routersIndicates duplicate RID
Type 5 count (enterprise)10–500>1000>5000
Type 5 in stub area0Any (design violation)—

SPF Norms:

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

Decision Trees

Adjacency Not Forming

Neighbor not reaching Full state
├── State: Down
│   ├── Interface up? → Check Layer 1/2 status
│   ├── OSPF enabled on interface? → Check network statement or ip ospf config
│   ├── Correct area? → Compare area ID both sides
│   └── Multicast reachable? → Check ACLs for 224.0.0.5/224.0.0.6
│
├── State: Init (one-way)
│   ├── Hello timer mismatch? → Compare hello/dead intervals both sides
│   ├── Area ID mismatch? → Must match exactly on shared segment
│   ├── Authentication mismatch? → Verify type and key both sides
│   ├── Subnet mismatch? → Interfaces must be on same subnet
│   └── MTU blocking return hellos? → Check interface MTU both sides
│
├── State: 2-Way (expected on broadcast for DROther↔DROther)
│   ├── Both routers DROther? → Normal — Full only with DR/BDR
│   ├── DR/BDR election stuck? → Check priority values, verify DR is up
│   └── Unexpected? → Force DR election: clear ospf process (disruptive)
│
├── State: ExStart (most actionable stuck state)
│   ├── MTU mismatch? → Compare MTU both sides (most common cause)
│   │   ├── Cisco: ip mtu vs ip ospf mtu-ignore
│   │   ├── JunOS: interface MTU settings
│   │   └── Fix: match MTU or enable mtu-ignore (workaround)
│   └── DBD packet issues? → Check for packet drops, interface errors
│
├── State: Exchange
│   ├── LSDB too large? → Reduce area scope, add summarization
│   ├── DBD retransmissions? → Check interface reliability, CRC errors
│   └── CPU overloaded? → Check process CPU during exchange
│
└── State: Loading
    ├── LSAs being withdrawn during sync? → Check for flapping neighbor
    ├── Incomplete LSR responses? → Verify peer stability
    └── Timeout? → Increase retransmit interval if link is slow

Missing or Unexpected Routes

Route not in routing table (or unexpected route present)
├── Missing route?
│   ├── LSA in LSDB? → show ip ospf database [type] [id]
│   │   ├── LSA present → SPF did not install
│   │   │   ├── Better route via another protocol? → Check admin distance
│   │   │   ├── Filtered by distribute-list? → Check outbound filters
│   │   │   └── Next-hop unreachable? → Verify forwarding address
│   │   └── LSA absent → Not being advertised
│   │       ├── In stub area? → Type 5 filtered by design — use NSSA or default
│   │       ├── ABR not summarizing? → Check area range / summary config
│   │       ├── Redistribution missing? → Verify ASBR redistribute config
│   │       └── Originator down? → Check originating router's OSPF status
│   └── Check area boundaries → ABR filtering or summarization may exclude
│
└── Unexpected route?
    ├── Unexpected Type 5 LSA? → Identify ASBR → check redistribution scope
    ├── Unexpected Type 7 → Type 5 translation? → Check NSSA ABR behavior
    ├── Route from wrong area? → Verify area assignments on originator
    └── Duplicate router ID? → Two routers with same RID cause LSA conflicts

Report Template

OSPF ANALYSIS REPORT
=====================
Device: [hostname]
Vendor: [Cisco | JunOS | EOS]
OSPF Process ID: [process-id]
Router ID: [router-id]
Check Time: [timestamp]
Performed By: [operator/agent]

ADJACENCY STATUS:
- Total neighbors expected: [n]
- Full: [n] | Non-Full: [n]
- Neighbors requiring attention: [list with FSM states]

AREA TOPOLOGY:
- Areas configured: [list with types — backbone, stub, NSSA, standard]
- ABR count: [n] | ASBR count: [n]
- Backbone contiguous: [yes/no]

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

LSDB SUMMARY:
- LSA counts by type: [Type 1: n, Type 2: n, ...]
- MaxAge LSAs: [count — 0 is healthy]
- LSA age anomalies: [any near-expiry LSAs]

SPF STATUS:
- Last SPF run: [timestamp]
- SPF runs in last hour: [count]
- Convergence assessment: [healthy/warning/critical]

RECOMMENDATIONS:
- [Prioritized action list]

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

Troubleshooting

MTU Mismatch (ExStart Stuck)

The most common OSPF adjacency failure. Neighbors reach ExStart but cannot proceed because DBD packets exceed the smaller MTU and are dropped. Fix by matching MTU on both sides. Workaround: ip ospf mtu-ignore (Cisco/EOS) skips the check but may cause fragmentation issues. On JunOS, set matching MTU values at the interface level.

Duplicate Router IDs

Two routers with the same Router ID cause LSA conflicts — each router's Type 1 LSA overwrites the other's in the LSDB. Symptoms: routes flapping, intermittent reachability. Fix: assign unique router IDs explicitly. Detect by checking for Type 1 LSAs with the same Link State ID but different advertising routers.

Area 0 Discontinuity

If area 0 is split, inter-area routing breaks — ABRs cannot flood Type 3 LSAs across the gap. Fix: restore physical backbone connectivity or configure virtual links through a transit area. Virtual links are temporary solutions — long-term design should maintain contiguous backbone.

Excessive Redistribution

Redistributing too many external routes into OSPF floods the LSDB with Type 5 LSAs, increasing SPF computation time and memory usage. Use route-maps with prefix-lists to limit redistribution scope. Consider stub or NSSA areas to shield non-edge routers from external LSAs.

Type 7 to Type 5 Translation

In NSSA areas, the ABR with the highest Router ID translates Type 7 LSAs to Type 5 for flooding into area 0. If translation fails, external routes from the NSSA are invisible to the rest of the OSPF domain. Verify the translator ABR is healthy and the forwarding address in the Type 7 LSA is reachable.

平台分布

OpenClaw

91.3%
按下载量换算767

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

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