Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
效率只读clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

traffic-lights交通灯

Agent Skill

traffic-lights 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。

总安装

3,975

周安装

169

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

1,393
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:traffic-lights(交通灯)
来源仓库:https://github.com/linuszz/traffic-lights
安装命令:
openclaw skills install traffic-lights
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 traffic-lights

简介

使用交通灯模型创建多标准比较图表,辅助决策评估。

  • 适用于选项对比、竞争分析或执行仪表板展示。
  • 通过 clawhub 安装,命令为 openclaw skills install traffic-lights。
  • 需确认评分维度和权重设置,确保评估客观性。
  • 建议结合业务场景调整指标项和可视化规则。traffic-lights 属于效率类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

name
traffic-lights
description
Create multi-criteria comparison charts using traffic lights or Harvey balls. Use for option evaluation, competitive comparison, and executive dashboards.

Traffic Light Charts

Metadata

  • Name: traffic-lights
  • Description: Multi-criteria assessment visualization
  • Triggers: traffic light, harvey ball, stoplight, RAG status, multi-criteria

Instructions

You are creating a traffic light chart to evaluate $ARGUMENTS.

Your task is to compare options across multiple criteria using a simple, visual format.

Framework

Visual Options

Traffic Lights (RAG)

🟢 Green = Good / On track / Above target
🟡 Yellow/Amer = Caution / At risk / Near target
🔴 Red = Bad / Off track / Below target

Harvey Balls (Half-moons)

○  Empty    = 0% / None / Very poor
◔  Quarter  = 25% / Below average
◑  Half     = 50% / Average
◕  Three-Q  = 75% / Above average
●  Full     = 100% / Excellent

Arrows

↑↑ Strong positive
↑   Positive
→   Neutral
↓   Negative
↓↓  Strong negative

When to Use Which

Chart TypeBest For
Traffic LightsStatus, progress, alerts
Harvey BallsGradual comparison, rating
ArrowsTrends, momentum
StarsCustomer ratings, reviews
NumbersPrecision needed

Standard Applications

  1. Competitive Comparison - Us vs. competitors on key criteria
  2. Option Evaluation - Compare alternatives for decision
  3. Status Dashboard - Project/portfolio health
  4. Gap Analysis - Current vs. desired state
  5. Vendor Selection - Compare suppliers on requirements

Output Process

  1. Define criteria - What dimensions matter?
  2. Set scale - What does each color/symbol mean?
  3. Gather data - Assess each option on each criterion
  4. Apply ratings - Consistent methodology
  5. Calculate overall - Summary score
  6. Visualize - Create the chart
  7. Annotate - Add context and insights
  8. Interpret - Draw conclusions

Output Format

## Traffic Light Chart: [Subject]

### Assessment Criteria

| # | Criterion | Weight | Definition |
|---|-----------|--------|------------|
| 1 | [Criterion 1] | 20% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 2 | [Criterion 2] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 3 | [Criterion 3] | 25% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 4 | [Criterion 4] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 5 | [Criterion 5] | 10% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
| 6 | [Criterion 6] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z |
|   | **Total** | **100%** | |

---

### Traffic Light Matrix

| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| **1. [Criterion 1]** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 |
| **2. [Criterion 2]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 |
| **3. [Criterion 3]** | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 | 🟢 |
| **4. [Criterion 4]** | 🟢 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 |
| **5. [Criterion 5]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 |
| **6. [Criterion 6]** | 🔴 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 |
| **OVERALL** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 |

**Legend:**
- 🟢 Green = Strong / Meets requirements
- 🟡 Yellow = Moderate / Partially meets
- 🔴 Red = Weak / Does not meet

---

### Scoring (Optional Quantitative)

| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| 1. [Criterion] | 20% | 3 (0.6) | 2 (0.4) | 3 (0.6) | 1 (0.2) |
| 2. [Criterion] | 15% | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) |
| 3. [Criterion] | 25% | 3 (0.75) | 1 (0.25) | 3 (0.75) | 3 (0.75) |
| 4. [Criterion] | 15% | 3 (0.45) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) |
| 5. [Criterion] | 10% | 2 (0.2) | 3 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.3) |
| 6. [Criterion] | 15% | 1 (0.15) | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) |
| **WEIGHTED TOTAL** | **100%** | **2.45** | **2.15** | **2.50** | **2.15** |
| **RANK** | | **2nd** | **3rd** | **1st** | **3rd** |

*Scale: 1=Red, 2=Yellow, 3=Green*

---

### Alternative: Harvey Ball Format

| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| **1. [Criterion]** | ● | ◑ | ● | ◔ |
| **2. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◑ | ◑ |
| **3. [Criterion]** | ● | ○ | ● | ◑ |
| **4. [Criterion]** | ● | ● | ◑ | ◑ |
| **5. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◔ | ● |
| **6. [Criterion]** | ◔ | ◑ | ● | ◑ |
| **OVERALL** | ◕ | ◑ | ● | ◑ |

**Legend:**
- ○ None (0%) | ◔ Quarter (25%) | ◑ Half (50%) | ◕ Three-Q (75%) | ● Full (100%)

---

### Pattern Analysis

**Strengths by Option**

| Option | Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|--------|---------------|----------------|
| Option A | [Criterion 1, 3, 4] | [Criterion 6] |
| Option B | [Criterion 2, 4, 5] | [Criterion 3] |
| Option C | [Criterion 1, 3, 6] | [Criterion 5] |
| Option D | [Criterion 1, 3, 5] | [Criterion 1] |

**Patterns Observed**
1. [Pattern 1 - e.g., "All options score well on Criterion 4"]
2. [Pattern 2 - e.g., "Criterion 3 shows largest differentiation"]
3. [Pattern 3 - e.g., "No option scores green on all criteria"]

---

### Recommendation

**Top Choice: [Option C]**
- Rationale: [Why this option]
- Trade-offs: [What we give up]

**Runner-up: [Option A]**
- When to consider: [Situations where this is better]

**Not Recommended: [Option D]**
- Why not: [Key deficiencies]

Tips

  • Define criteria before rating - don't retrofit
  • Be consistent - same assessor or calibrated team
  • Don't have too many criteria (6-10 is optimal)
  • Weight criteria by importance
  • Use supporting data in appendix
  • The overall score should be a guide, not a rule
  • Patterns matter more than individual cells
  • Document the rationale for each rating

References

  • Few, Stephen. *Information Dashboard Design*. 2006.
  • Tufte, Edward. *Beautiful Evidence*. 2006.

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

97.79%
按下载量换算1,362

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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