> I think it’s because eventually the “few thousand auditable lines” idea vanishes with enough skills added?

I just watched a youtube interview with the creator. He actually explains it well. OpenClaw has hundreds of thousands of lines you will never use.

For example, if I only use iMessage, I have lots of code (all the other messaging integrations) that will never be used.

So the skills model means that you only "generate code" that _you_ specifically ask for.

In fact, as I'm explaining this, it feels like "lazy-loading" of code, which is a pretty cool idea. Whereas OpenClaw "eager-loads" all possible code whether you use it or not.

And that's appealing enough to me to set it up. I just haven't put it in any time to customize it, etc.

I totally get that, and I'm reminded of plugin architectures (e.g. VSCode extensions or browser extensions).

Those extensions don't modify the core codepaths for what they integrate with, but still provide new capabilities for only what I want to use.

I guess I don't see extensibility, agentic capabilities, and more code safety (and fewer tokens burned on codemods) as mutually exclusive. Not saying you're saying that fwiw.