Create example OpenClaw plugin using before_install

[Patrick-Erichsen]

Create an example plugin using the before_install hook on OpenClaw to demonstrate skill scanning capabilities.

Branch: feat/openclaw-plugin

Acceptance criteria:

• Example plugin demonstrates running ClawScan before skill install via OpenClaw's before_install hook.
• Documentation explains how to try the plugin locally.
• The example stays out of the README roadmap until it is ready to ship.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve. Reviewed July 8, 2026, 8:15 AM ET / 12:15 UTC.

Summary
Keep open: current main still lacks the requested OpenClaw before_install plugin example and local try-it docs, and collaborator/product-decision signals mean maintainers should decide whether this repo owns that package surface.

Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a feature/example request rather than a bug. Current-main source inspection verifies that the requested plugin and docs are absent.

Ways to help us reproduce this

• Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
• Add expected vs actual behavior.
• Include redacted logs or terminal output.

Next step
Maintainer review is needed because the item is collaborator-authored, already product-decision labeled, and would decide repo-owned OpenClaw plugin packaging rather than a narrow ClawScan bug fix.

Maintainer decision needed

• Question: Should ClawScan own a repo-hosted OpenClaw before_install example plugin, or should this remain an external OpenClaw plugin package until the boundary is clearer?
• Rationale: The requested work is useful for security workflow demonstration, but it adds plugin/package/config surface around install-time policy and current VISION.md keeps ClawScan CLI-first until maintainers approve that expansion.
• Likely owner: Patrick-Erichsen — Patrick is the default code owner and owns the off-main branch that already contains the candidate plugin work.
• Options:
  • Keep external first (recommended): Publish or preserve the plugin as a separate OpenClaw package and revisit repo inclusion only after maintainers confirm ClawScan should own this example.
  • Sponsor repo-hosted example: Approve a narrow PR that adds only the plugin package, local proof, tests, and docs without public ClawScan CLI expansion or README roadmap claims.
  • Close after external publication: If the example is published elsewhere and no ClawScan code or docs change remains, close this issue with a link to that package.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Decide the packaging boundary; if repo-owned, land a focused plugin package with manifest, source, tests, local OpenClaw smoke proof, and docs while avoiding new public ClawScan CLI flags or premature README roadmap promises.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable; this is a feature/example request rather than a bug. Current-main source inspection verifies that the requested plugin and docs are absent.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear until maintainers confirm product direction. The narrowest maintainable path is either an external OpenClaw plugin package or a focused repo-hosted example with proof, tests, and no public CLI expansion.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• Closing now would drop a still-missing example because the only implementation found is on an off-main branch with no PR owning it.
• A repo-hosted OpenClaw plugin example would add security hook, package, and configuration surface while VISION.md keeps ClawScan CLI-first, so maintainers should decide ownership before implementation.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against a7ecc9851798.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded security workflow/example improvement with clear acceptance criteria, but it is not an urgent regression.
• impact:security: The requested hook would run ClawScan before skill installation and could affect whether suspicious or malicious skills are blocked.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Repository policy read: AGENTS.md was read fully; its guidance to keep the public ClawScan CLI general-purpose applies to any repo-hosted OpenClaw plugin example. (AGENTS.md:10, a7ecc9851798)
• Current main lacks the requested example: A current-main search found no before_install, beforeInstall, openclaw-plugin, or OpenClaw plugin implementation paths outside git history. (a7ecc9851798)
• Vision needs product boundary review: VISION.md supports ClawHub scanning transparency, but also says ClawScan is CLI-first and defers plugin APIs until repeated use proves the surface worth adding. (VISION.md:135, a7ecc9851798)
• Named branch contains candidate work: The remote feat/openclaw-plugin branch exists at 5cec0b3; its plugin source registers api.on("before_install", ...) and its README documents local install/configuration. (openclaw-plugin/src/index.ts:967, 5cec0b347af8)
• Plugin work is not on main: Commit 78f7577 deleted the openclaw-plugin package from main, so the useful candidate implementation remains off the default branch. (openclaw-plugin/src/index.ts, 78f75778116c)
• Release check: The latest release tag v0.1.1 points at bf47e6d and its tree has no openclaw-plugin package paths, so the requested example has not shipped. (bf47e6de48ea)

Likely related people:

• Patrick-Erichsen: CODEOWNERS lists Patrick as the default owner; Patrick authored the issue, the off-main plugin work, the commit that moved it off main, and the README roadmap cleanup. (role: default code owner and feature-branch owner; confidence: high; commits: 5cec0b347af8, 78f75778116c, 96f363ab9d33; files: .github/CODEOWNERS, openclaw-plugin/src/index.ts, openclaw-plugin/README.md)
• vincentkoc: Vincent authored current governance, CODEOWNERS, VISION, and dependency-review boundary changes that affect whether a new package surface belongs in this repo. (role: repository-boundary contributor; confidence: medium; commits: bf47e6de48ea, 9f72d2ce0813, 8125abb45795; files: AGENTS.md, VISION.md, .github/CODEOWNERS)

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

[clawsweeper]

ClawSweeper status: review started.

I am starting a fresh review of this issue: Create example OpenClaw plugin using before_install This is item 1/1 in the current shard. Shard 0/1.

This placeholder means the worker is alive and reading the current context. I will edit this same comment with the actual review when the claws are done clicking.

Crustacean status: shell secured, claws on keyboard, evidence pebbles being sorted.