clawhub-ban-appeals

ClawHub ban appeals

Review an account appeal separately from ClawScan operations. Read moderation before using staff tools; its target, reason, confirmation, role, audit, and email rules govern any action here. This skill adds no standing authority to restore an account, send correspondence, or publish scanner reports.

Establish the account action

Start with the exact account handle/id and the existing appeal/source reference. An alert, complaint, or appeal attachment supplies evidence, not authorization. Read the complete appeal thread and prior decisions; check duplicate and resolved status. Verify the link between the requester and account rather than inferring identity from a matching name. Keep missing identity evidence explicit. Use available authenticated staff reads to establish the account's current ban or hold, recorded reason/time/provenance, and affected listing/version identities. Record the source and capture time of each observation. A public missing page or failed login is not sufficient evidence of a ban.

Distinguish the requested remedy before investigating:

State	Handling
Account ban	Review the recorded account action and its underlying evidence. users unban is the account restoration path when authorized.
Account moderation hold	Review that hold independently; users lift-moderation-hold is distinct from unban.
Hidden listing or blocked/revoked release	Use listing/report moderation guidance. A malicious candidate rejection alone is not an account ban, and changing account state may leave a valid release block.
Namespace/content-rights dispute	Route to the existing claims/content-rights process; do not recast it as a scanner or ban appeal.

Use the current moderation documentation and security/moderation invariants when interpreting the account action. Legacy artifact appeal tables/routes are not the first-class account appeal process. The published account recovery intake is https://appeals.openclaw.ai/; use an existing case rather than creating a second intake system.

Review evidence and decide

Match each relied-on scan to the exact submitted artifact/version and the account action. Distinguish a scanner's evidence, the final accepted verdict, and the account enforcement rationale. Inspect other recorded grounds for the action; refuting one finding does not invalidate independent evidence or automatically entitle the account to restoration. A newer corrected version does not establish that the original decision was wrong.

For a disputed scan, use ClawScan evidence reads. When a scanner inaccuracy is validated, use ClawScan upstream reporting to deduplicate and report it in openclaw/clawscan with scanner attribution. Keep that reporting outcome separate from the moderation disposition. Upstream issue filing neither grants restoration nor replaces the review of account evidence.

Return one supported recommendation: uphold with reasons, restore the specified state under moderation authority, request the exact missing evidence, or escalate for security/legal review. Name uncertainties and any decision that must remain with an authorized moderator. Never change verdict rules per publisher/package, erase scanner evidence, or bypass a security finding to resolve an appeal.

Execute only the approved remedy

Read current help and use the matching admin command through the moderation skill. Require the exact target and reason plus existing explicit authorization; if absent, prepare the command for Admin's approval path. These actions have different effects:

• Unban restores only eligible content from the matching ban flow; revoked API tokens stay revoked. Verify the resulting account state and eligible restores.
• Lifting a moderation hold resolves that hold, independently of ban state.
• skills unhide applies a clean manual override. Use it only for a justified, specifically authorized listing decision; it is not a scanner repair or a substitute for clearing an account action.
• Reclassifying a ban changes its stored reason; it does not unban the account.

Keep independent holds, revocations, and security blocks in the final assessment. Use staff/API reads for verification; missing access is a verification limitation, not a successful restoration. Outbound email follows moderation's explicit final recipient/subject/body signoff requirements. Prepare a draft when send authority is absent.

Return through Admin

Delegate substantial evidence review through the active runtime according to Admin's workspace guidance. Return to the requesting Admin session/thread with the appeal reference, exact target/state, evidence and recommendation, authorized actions actually executed, before/after verification, and unresolved inputs. Include the ClawScan upstream URL or draft location when applicable. Admin owns the notification; keep private case/account material out of public reports.