Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
效率权限需确认clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

objective-evaluator客观评价者

Agent Skill

objective-evaluator 用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑开发,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要维护前端项目、生成组件或检查界面实现时使用。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

8,461

周安装

339

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

2,739
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:objective-evaluator(客观评价者)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jarviyin/objective-evaluator
安装命令:
openclaw skills install objective-evaluator
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 objective-evaluator

简介

objective-evaluator 用于基于设计原则评估产品与想法。

  • 采用经典设计框架分析止痛药与维生素型功能。
  • 适合在界面优化或交互改进时提供客观依据。
  • 通过 clawhub 安装,需结合具体业务场景解读结果。
  • 建议配合原型或截图使用以验证实际表现。objective-evaluator 属于效率类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

name
objective-evaluator
description
客观原则评价技能 - Evaluate products, ideas, or designs using objective principles from three design classics. Based on Tony Fadell's Build (painkiller vs vitamin), Don Norman's Design of Everyday Things (three levels of design), and Dieter Rams' Ten Principles (red flags). Use when asked to evaluate, review, critique, judge, or assess any product, service, feature, tool, or design concept objectively. Triggers on phrases like "evaluate this", "what do you think of", "review", "judge", "audit", "评价", "怎么样", or when assessing product-market fit, usability, or design quality.

Objective Evaluator - 客观原则评价技能

基于三本经典设计著作的客观评价框架:

  • Tony Fadell《Build》 - 止痛药 vs 维生素
  • Don Norman《设计心理学》 - 设计的三个层次
  • Dieter Rams《设计十诫》 - 红旗警告

Evaluate any product, idea, or design through three complementary lenses:

Evaluate any product, idea, or design through three complementary lenses:

🔧 Tool (Painkiller vs Vitamin)

Based on Tony Fadell - Build

Ask:

  • Does it solve a real physical/information pain point?
  • If it breaks tomorrow, does the workflow stop?
  • Is it a painkiller (essential) or vitamin (nice-to-have)?

Scoring:

  • Tool - Solves real pain, workflow depends on it
  • ⚠️ Edge Tool - Painkiller for some, vitamin for others
  • Not a Tool - No real pain point addressed

🎨 Toy (Three Levels of Design)

Based on Don Norman - Design of Everyday Things

Evaluate across three levels:

LevelQuestionWhat to check
VisceralDoes it bring immediate pleasure/aesthetic satisfaction?First impression, visual appeal, emotional response
BehavioralIs the affordance natural? Does it work as expected?Usability, feedback, control, error prevention
ReflectiveDoes it create long-term attachment/identity?Personal meaning, self-image, long-term satisfaction

Scoring:

  • Strong Toy - Delivers on 2+ levels effectively
  • ⚠️ Weak Toy - Delivers on 1 level only
  • Not a Toy - No emotional or experiential value

🚩 Trash (Red Flags)

Based on Dieter Rams - Ten Principles of Good Design

Check for these deal-breakers:

Red FlagDescriptionExample
Physics ViolationViolates physical laws or logical impossibilityPerpetual motion, impossible chemistry
Marketing FictionCreates pseudo-demand through manipulation"You need this" when you don't
Dishonest DesignDeceives users about function or originFake buttons, hidden costs, dark patterns
Planned ObsolescenceDesigned to fail unnecessarilyNon-replaceable batteries, software locks

Scoring:

  • 🚩 Trash - Any red flag present
  • ⚠️ Yellow Flag - Borderline marketing stretch
  • Clean - No red flags

📊 Final Verdict

Synthesize into clear classification:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  TOOL + Strong Toy + Clean  →  KEEP ✅  │
│  TOY (only) + Clean         →  MAYBE ⚠️ │
│  Any + Trash flag           →  REJECT 🚮 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

🎯 Usage Pattern

When evaluating something:

  1. Run the three audits independently
  2. Note tensions (e.g., strong Tool but weak Toy = industrial equipment)
  3. Identify user segments (Tool for pros, Toy for consumers)
  4. Deliver verdict with nuance about who it's for

💡 Key Insights to Surface

  • Business model cleverness - How do they make money vs what they sell?
  • Identity play - Are they selling functionality or self-image?
  • Marketing vs Reality - Where does the story diverge from truth?
  • Segment dependency - Different answers for different users

Example Output Format

## [Product Name] - T3 Audit

### 🔧 Tool Assessment
| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Real pain point? | ✅ Yes - ... |
| Workflow critical? | ⚠️ Partial - ... |

**Verdict:** Edge Tool (pros yes, casual users no)

### 🎨 Toy Assessment  
| Level | Score | Notes |
|-------|-------|-------|
| Visceral | ✅ | Beautiful industrial design |
| Behavioral | ⚠️ | Learning curve exists |
| Reflective | ✅ | "Pro user" identity |

**Verdict:** Strong Toy

### 🚩 Trash Check
- Physics violation? ❌ No
- Marketing fiction? ⚠️ Yellow flag - ...
- Dishonest design? ❌ No

### 📊 Final Verdict
**Segment-dependent:** TOOL for professionals, TOY for enthusiasts

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

96.55%
按下载量换算2,645

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

权限需确认

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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