By name: awesome-list-creator description: > Create, curate, and maintain high-quality awesome lists on GitHub. Use when the user wants to build a curated resource list, organize tools by category or role, create a GitHub-based directory, or maintain an existing awesome list. Handles the full lifecycle: research and discover tools, organize by use-case workflows, deduplicate, format as clean markdown tables, add GitHub badges, and publish. version: 1.0.0 license: CC0-1.0 homepage: https://github.com/serenakeyitan/awesome-list-creator metadata: openclaw: emoji: "📋" requires: bins: - gh - git
Awesome List Creator
Create, curate, and maintain high-quality awesome lists on GitHub — from initial research through publishing and ongoing maintenance.
When to Use This Skill
- User wants to create a curated resource list or directory
- User wants to organize tools, libraries, or skills by category
- User wants to build an "awesome list" style GitHub repo
- User asks to maintain, deduplicate, or improve an existing awesome list
- User wants to research and compare tools in a domain
Workflow
Follow these steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one.
Step 1: Define the Organizing Principle
Ask the user how they want to organize. The two dominant patterns are:
- By role / persona — "Who are you?" (e.g., marketer, engineer, researcher). Best when tools serve different professional workflows.
- By use case — "What are you trying to do?" (e.g., web scraping, data analysis). Best when tools are task-oriented.
Within either pattern, every section should represent a real workflow step, not just a technical category. For example, under a "Marketing" role:
Research competitors → Write SEO content → Build landing pages → Launch ads → Track analytics
Each arrow is a subsection. Each subsection should have a one-line description explaining what the use case is and why it matters.
Step 2: Research and Collect
For each subsection, find the best tools. Prioritize:
- Open-source tools with GitHub stars — verifiable quality signal
- Official MCP servers from the tool vendor (e.g., Stripe MCP, Prisma MCP)
- Community skills from ClawHub or the OpenClaw skills registry
- Actively maintained — check last commit date, open issues
Search strategy:
- GitHub search:
"MCP server" + [domain]or"openclaw skill" + [domain] - ClawHub registry: https://clawhub.ai/skills?sort=downloads
- Reference lists: check existing awesome lists in the same space
- Web search for
"awesome" + [topic]to find prior art
Step 3: Deduplicate Ruthlessly
This is the most important curation step. For each subsection:
- Identify tools that serve the same purpose — e.g., two database gateways, two image generators, two Twitter scrapers
- Keep the one with higher stars or more complete feature set
- Never keep two tools that do the same thing in the same section
- Cross-section duplicates are OK if the tool genuinely serves different workflows in each section (e.g., a scheduling tool appearing under both "Sales > Meetings" and "Operations > Calendar")
Step 4: Format as Markdown Tables
Use this exact table format for every section. The <img> spacers enforce consistent column widths across all tables when rendered on GitHub:
### Section Name
One-line description of the use case — what you're trying to accomplish and why.
| Name <img width="250" height="1"> | Description <img width="700" height="1"> |
|------|-------------|
| [Tool Name](https://github.com/org/repo) | One-line description ending with a period. ⭐1.2k |
| [Another Tool](https://clawhub.ai/author/skill) | Another description ending with a period. |
Rules:
- Name column: Link text is the tool name. Link URL goes to GitHub repo, ClawHub page, or official docs.
- Description column: One sentence, ends with a period. Include ⭐ star count if available. Add 🇨🇳 after the name link for China-market-specific tools.
- Star counts: Use abbreviated format —
⭐1.2k,⭐450,⭐27k. - No bold, no extra columns — keep it minimal and scannable.
Step 5: Structure the Full README
<div align="center">
# Awesome [Topic]
[](https://awesome.re)
[](https://github.com/user/repo/pulls)
[](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
**One-line pitch.**
Second line with more detail.
[Section 1](#section-1) • [Section 2](#section-2) • [Section 3](#section-3)
</div>
---
Brief explanation of how this list is organized and what makes it different.
## Contents
- [Section 1](#section-1)
- [Section 2](#section-2)
- ...
---
## Section 1
*Workflow narrative: Step A → Step B → Step C → Step D.*
### Subsection
... tables ...
---
<p align="right"><a href="#awesome-topic">back to top</a></p>
## Contributing
... guidelines ...
## Related Lists
| List | Description |
|------|-------------|
| [org/repo](link) | Description. |
## License
[](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
Step 6: Set Up the GitHub Repo
After writing the README, configure the repo:
# Set description
gh repo edit --description "A curated list of [topic] — [value prop]."
# Add topics for discoverability
gh repo edit --add-topic awesome --add-topic awesome-list --add-topic [domain-topics]
# Set homepage to the README anchor
gh repo edit --homepage "https://github.com/user/repo#awesome-topic"
Step 7: Ongoing Maintenance
When maintaining an existing list:
- Audit for staleness — check if linked repos are archived or unmaintained
- Deduplicate new additions — every PR should be checked against existing entries in the same section
- Update star counts — refresh periodically (stars change)
- Fill workflow gaps — if a subsection has only 1 tool, research whether better options exist now
Quality Standards
- Every tool must have a working link (GitHub, ClawHub, or official docs)
- Descriptions must be factual, not marketing copy
- Star counts must be verifiable
- One tool per purpose per section — no padding
- Sections with zero tools should be removed, not left empty
- Contributing guidelines must include a "no duplicates" rule
Common Pitfalls
- Padding with low-quality entries to make a section look bigger — resist this
- Organizing by technology instead of by use case — think "what is the user trying to accomplish?"
- Keeping both sides of a duplicate because "they're slightly different" — if 90% of the functionality overlaps, pick one
- Missing workflow steps — walk through the real workflow and check if any step has zero tools
- Inconsistent formatting — every table must use the same column widths and structure