Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

swarm-executor群体执行者

Agent Skill

swarm-executor 用于补充开发相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接开发相关任务时使用。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。

总安装

2,739

周安装

113

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

895
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:swarm-executor(群体执行者)
来源仓库:https://github.com/xb19960921/swarm-executor
安装命令:
openclaw skills install swarm-executor
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 swarm-executor

简介

使用轻量级 Pub/Sub 协议、标准化 SwarmCommand 消息、令牌预算控制、代理状态跟踪等协调多代理群执行

SKILL.md

name
swarm-coordinator
description
Coordinate multi-agent swarm execution with a lightweight Pub/Sub protocol, standardized SwarmCommand messages, token-budget control, agent status tracking, negotiation, fallback, and completion gates. Use when building or reviewing multi-agent coordination, swarm execution, task delegation, agent handoff, token quota governance, Redis/in-memory PubSub orchestration, role-based agent teams, or safe parallel AI workflows.
version
1.1.0
last_updated
2026-04-25
changelog
ClawHub-ready release: generalized public wording, added execution workflow, safety boundaries, gates, failure handling, validation checklist, and test prompts.

Swarm Coordinator

Swarm Coordinator is a lightweight coordination skill for multi-agent execution. It helps an agent design, validate, and operate a swarm workflow using:

  • standardized SwarmCommand messages
  • Redis or in-memory Pub/Sub coordination
  • token-budget governance and downgrade rules
  • agent status tracking
  • negotiation and conflict resolution
  • assignment, completion, and failure notifications

Use it when the task is not “one agent answers once”, but multiple agents must coordinate without losing control of cost, state, ownership, or completion criteria.

This skill is intentionally control-oriented: a swarm is only valuable when parallelism improves throughput or quality without causing duplicated work, hidden queue drift, or uncontrolled token spend.


When to Use

Use this skill for:

  • multi-agent task delegation or swarm execution
  • role-based AI teams, agent crews, or collaborative agent workflows
  • Pub/Sub task coordination with Redis or memory queues
  • designing a standard command protocol between agents
  • assigning roles, budgets, deadlines, and dependencies
  • tracking task state across multiple agents
  • negotiating conflicts between agents
  • enforcing token quota and fallback behavior
  • reviewing whether a swarm workflow can converge safely

Do not use it for simple single-agent tasks. If one agent can complete the job directly, avoid swarm overhead.


Core Principle

A swarm is useful only if it improves throughput or quality without causing coordination chaos.

Always protect four invariants:

  1. Single task owner — every task has one accountable owner at a time.
  2. Explicit state — each command has status, deadline, budget, dependencies, and result.
  3. Bounded cost — token budget and downgrade rules are part of the protocol.
  4. Verifiable completion — completion requires artifacts, tests, review, or an explicit result field.

If any invariant is missing, the swarm can drift, duplicate work, or burn tokens.


Default Workflow

Step 1: Decide whether swarm is justified

Use swarm only when at least one is true:

  • task can be split into independent subtasks
  • different agents have clearly different roles
  • review/verification must be separated from implementation
  • latency can be reduced through parallel work
  • negotiation is needed because constraints conflict

If not, keep it single-agent.

Step 2: Define roles and ownership

Specify:

commander / coordinator
executor(s)
reviewer / auditor
monitor / verifier
fallback owner

Each task should have one current assigned_to. Multiple reviewers are allowed, but multiple executors writing the same artifact are not unless explicitly coordinated.

Step 3: Create a SwarmCommand

A command must include:

{
  "command_id": "cmd_12345678",
  "timestamp": "2026-04-25T12:00:00Z",
  "sender": {"type": "coordinator", "id": "001"},
  "target": {"type": "developer", "id": "003"},
  "command": {
    "action": "develop",
    "module": "login",
    "requirements": ["JWT auth", "tests"],
    "output_format": "python_code"
  },
  "metadata": {
    "priority": "high",
    "token_budget": 1500,
    "deadline": "2026-04-25T13:00:00Z",
    "dependencies": []
  },
  "negotiation": {
    "allowed": true,
    "timeout": 300
  }
}

Prefer using coordinator/swarm_protocol.py for deterministic command creation and validation. If your project has its own agent taxonomy, map local role names to the protocol roles instead of hard-coding private labels in prompts.

Step 4: Validate before publish

Before publishing to Redis or memory queue, validate:

  • schema format
  • known sender / target role
  • priority is one of low | medium | high | critical
  • token budget is positive and within tier quota
  • dependencies exist or are intentionally empty
  • deadline is realistic
  • completion gate is clear

If validation fails, do not publish. Return validation errors and ask for correction or auto-fix safe fields.

Step 5: Publish, subscribe, and track state

Use:

from coordinator.pubsub import PubSubCoordinator
from coordinator.swarm_protocol import SwarmProtocol

protocol = SwarmProtocol()
coordinator = PubSubCoordinator(use_redis=True)

command = protocol.create_command(
    agent_type="developer",
    command={"action": "analyze", "module": "performance"},
    priority="high",
    token_budget=2000,
)

valid, errors = protocol.validate_command(command)
if valid:
    coordinator.publish("tasks", command.to_dict())
else:
    print(errors)

Track state transitions:

pending → assigned → in_progress → completed / failed / cancelled

No command should remain in_progress forever. Use deadline or heartbeat timeout to trigger fallback.

Step 6: Collect result and close the loop

Completion should include:

  • success: true/false
  • output or artifact path
  • tests/review/verification result when applicable
  • token usage
  • failure reason if failed
  • next action recommendation

If result is missing required artifacts, mark as incomplete instead of completed.


Token Budget and Downgrade Rules

Use token budget as a control mechanism, not just metadata.

Recommended rules:

ConditionAction
budget remaining > 40%continue normal execution
budget remaining 20-40%compress context and reduce parallel agents
budget remaining < 20%downgrade model/tier or require coordinator approval
budget exceededstop publishing new subtasks and request confirmation
repeated failurelower concurrency and route to reviewer/monitor

For local implementation, use coordinator/token_budget.py if available.


Negotiation Rules

Allow negotiation when:

  • two agents propose conflicting plans
  • deadline and token budget cannot both be satisfied
  • a dependency is blocked
  • an agent lacks capability or context

Negotiation output should be a decision, not endless discussion:

{
  "decision": "assign_to_developer_then_review_by_auditor",
  "reason": "developer owns implementation; auditor reviews risk",
  "budget_adjustment": 500,
  "deadline_adjustment": null,
  "blocked": false
}

If negotiation exceeds timeout, coordinator decides or escalates to human.


Failure Handling

Handle these failures explicitly:

FailureResponse
invalid commandreject before publish; return schema errors
target unavailablereroute to fallback owner
dependency blockedkeep pending; notify coordinator
budget exceededpause or downgrade; do not silently continue
deadline missedmark failed or escalate
duplicate ownerchoose one owner; cancel duplicate assignment
incomplete resultreopen task with missing artifact list
repeated failurereduce concurrency; route to reviewer/monitor

Never let failures become silent queue drift.


Safety Boundaries

Ask for human confirmation before swarm actions that are:

  • destructive: delete data, remove files, reset state
  • public: publish, message external users, send email
  • costly: paid API calls, high-token parallel execution, cloud deployment
  • irreversible: production migrations, permission changes, credential rotation
  • ambiguous: unclear task owner, conflicting requirements, missing acceptance criteria

Swarm coordination amplifies mistakes. High-risk actions need stronger gates than single-agent execution.


Output Format

When using this skill, return:

## Swarm Plan
- Goal:
- Swarm justified? yes/no + reason
- Agents and roles:
- Ownership model:

## Commands
| command_id | target | action | budget | dependencies | gate |
|---|---|---|---:|---|---|

## Coordination Flow
pending → assigned → in_progress → completed/failed

## Budget / Downgrade
- Total budget:
- Per-agent budget:
- Downgrade trigger:

## Failure / Fallback
- Main risks:
- Fallback owner:
- Escalation condition:

## Verification
- Required artifacts:
- Tests / review:
- Done criteria:

For code-facing tasks, also mention which files or APIs to use.


Bundled Resources

Use these resources when needed:

  • coordinator/swarm_protocol.py — deterministic SwarmCommand creation, validation, assignment, completion, negotiation helpers.
  • schemas/swarm_command.json — JSON Schema for command validation.
  • tests/test_swarm_protocol.py — regression tests for protocol behavior.
  • test-prompts.json — Darwin-style prompts for future skill regression evaluation.

Read or run them when modifying the protocol implementation.


Validation Checklist

Before calling a swarm workflow ready, check:

  • [ ] Every task has exactly one current owner.
  • [ ] Every command validates against schema.
  • [ ] Budget and deadline are explicit.
  • [ ] Dependencies are declared.
  • [ ] Completion gate is explicit.
  • [ ] Failure fallback is defined.
  • [ ] High-risk actions require confirmation.
  • [ ] Tests or review exist for important outputs.
  • [ ] No open-ended negotiation loop remains.

Quality Bar

A good swarm plan should reduce confusion, not add bureaucracy.

It succeeds when:

  • agents know exactly what they own
  • coordinator can see state and budget
  • failures route to a clear fallback
  • completion is verifiable
  • token use stays bounded
  • parallelism improves throughput without oscillation

If the swarm adds agents without improving control, do not use swarm.

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

78.92%
按下载量换算706

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills