Design question: OpenClaw social skill publishing example

[kriptoburak]

Hi, I am checking target fit before opening a PR.

This repo already documents HCS-26 skill packages, OpenClaw compatibility, validation, and publishing through Registry Broker. Would a target-native example for publishing an approval-gated social automation skill fit here?

Proposed shape:

• Add a short reference doc such as references/OPENCLAW-SOCIAL-SKILL-EXAMPLE.md.
• Show the package fields and validation steps for a social skill that users can publish through Registry Broker.
• Use TweetClaw as the concrete OpenClaw plugin example because it covers X/Twitter workflows such as search tweets, search replies, follower export, media lookup, monitors, webhooks, and reviewed post/reply actions.
• Keep Registry Broker responsible for skill packaging, publishing, verification, discovery, and chat.
• Keep TweetClaw responsible for X/Twitter source collection and approval-gated write-like actions inside OpenClaw.
• Avoid credentials, cookies, private session values, unpublished drafts, and direct platform account operation in the registry example.

Validation I would run before a PR:

• pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
• pnpm run build
• git diff --check
• link checks for the new reference and touched README/SKILL surfaces
• duplicate scan for existing TweetClaw/Xquik/ClawHub mentions

Would that example be useful in this repo, or should external skill examples stay outside registry-broker-skills?