Methodology
How this site works editorially. What we do and don't claim. The disciplines that make the verification states + field notes credible.
Verification states
Every applicable page (setup methods, plugin field notes, use-case recipes) declares a verification state visibly. There are four:
| State | Meaning | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| tested-by-sush | Sush ran it. Date + version + hardware noted. | You can follow with confidence; we know it works. |
| tested-by-contributor | Someone else ran it; PR/issue linked. | Verified, but not by us. Cross-reference with the linked PR. |
| sourced-only | Compiled from official + community docs; we have NOT run it. | Sensible likely-correct path; verify before relying on in production. |
| planned | Stub — does NOT appear in top nav until promoted. | Not yet ready. Don't follow. |
Right now most pages are sourced-only because Sush is just starting his OpenClaw
run. As he runs setups + recipes, pages flip to tested-by-sush with the actual
session log + date.
Field notes (not reviews)
Plugin pages in §4 are titled "Field note" not "Review." Lighter editorial stance than a verdict-band scorecard. Each field note declares:
- What we checked (e.g. "install path · default scope · documented permissions")
- What we did NOT check (e.g. "performance under heavy load · symlink edge cases")
- Whether we ran it (verification state badge)
- Risk profile + level
- Maintainer health
- Sources used (linked)
- A dispute link to a GitHub issue template
"Field note" not "review" because: we don't grade plugins on a 1–10 scale or assign verdict bands. We describe what we found. That's lighter, more honest, and reduces legal exposure to plugin-author pushback.
Dispute mechanism
Every entry has an "edit this page on GitHub" link and a "dispute or correct this entry" link. If we got something wrong, the right path is a GitHub issue or PR. We respond to corrections from plugin authors and from readers. We don't gate corrections behind editorial pride.
Voice rules
Plain English. Honest take. Examples + scenarios + comparisons + "why this matters" for important concepts. A locked list of forbidden words is checked by voice-lint in CI — see that file for the full list, which includes typical marketing-speak signals around novelty, capability, and superlatives.
Why a fixed list: each one is a marketing-speak signal. The site fails its purpose if it reads like marketing. The lint runs on every push; advisory mode for general content, strict mode for roadmap docs.
Sources & citations
Every page that makes factual claims links to its sources. Most sources are docs.openclaw.ai, github.com/openclaw/openclaw, or scoped community resources (Adversa, BCG CIO brief, etc.). Where we synthesise across sources, we say so.
Sourced primitive map
Before any content page was written, we built
src/data/openclaw-primitives.json — 46 primitives grounded in real source URLs.
Every concept page derives from this map. If we use an umbrella term that isn't in OpenClaw
docs (e.g. "Connections" as our category for channels+tools+models+memory), it's flagged with
officialSource: null so readers know it's our framing, not OpenClaw's.
Why this matters: a tech-savvy OpenClaw reader spots invented or fuzzy primitives quickly. The primitive map is the source-of-truth that keeps us honest.
Independence
Claw Planet is an independent guide by Sush. Not affiliated with or endorsed by OpenClaw, ClawHub, or any plugin author unless explicitly stated. Sush works at Microsoft — Microsoft makes Azure. We cover Azure where it's a sensible OpenClaw option; we don't favour it because of who pays the bills. Microsoft disclosure is inline at the top of any page that discusses MS-related deployments (§2.5 Azure is the main one).
No paid tier. No email walls. No telemetry. No affiliate links unless explicitly disclosed. Repo is open under MIT for code, CC BY 4.0 for content where applicable.
Cadence
No schedule. Sush ships when there's something worth shipping. Watching the repo on GitHub is the way to see changes as they land.
Quality ratchet
Every push runs voice-lint, audit-claims (counts must match catalog), audit-verification-states (every applicable page must have a state), and integrity-check (broken-link count must stay below threshold). The threshold ratchets down as content lands. The site doesn't drift quality down silently.
What we don't do
- Formal scorecards with verdict bands (e.g. "8/10, Recommended"). Field notes only.
- CVE tracking. §6 security is patterns, not a vulnerability database.
- Vendor-sponsored content. Ever.
- "Get started" / "Try now" CTAs. The site is reading-shape, not selling-shape.
- Email capture. No popup. No newsletter wall.
What we do
- Plain English. Even for technical concepts.
- Honest verification states. Sourced-only is the default until we run it.
- Cross-links forward and back. Every entry links to prerequisites + next steps.
- "Why this matters" blocks for important concepts.
- "Things to try" sections for action.
- Sourced everywhere. Hover any link; it goes to a real source.
Last reviewed 2026-05-07. edit on GitHub →