Tencent Accused of Copying OpenClaw’s SkillHub – Company Says It’s Only a Mirror Site

Twitter user @Alfredxia asked OpenClaw founder Peter Steinberger ( @steipete ) whether Tencent had created a SkillHub that harvested every skill from ClawHub. The tweet quickly attracted attention, receiving 880 likes and 684,000 views.

"You know Tencent created a SkillHub? It scraped all skills from ClawHub and imported them to its own platform."

Peter’s reply was concise but sharp:

"More or less… I’ve received emails complaining that my rate limits prevent fast data scraping. They copy but never support the project. 😑"

He later tagged Tencent Hunyuan ( @TencentHunyuan ) asking for help with the server‑bill costs:

"@TencentHunyuan can you help a bit instead of pushing my server bill into five figures?"

Tencent’s official AI account ( @TencentAI_News ) responded the same afternoon, positioning SkillHub as a localized mirror of the OpenClaw ecosystem intended to improve usability and speed for Chinese users. The statement included concrete usage data from the first week:

180 GB of traffic (87 万 downloads) served to users.

Only 1 GB fetched directly from the official source (non‑concurrent requests).

The team also emphasized that many members contribute code and pull requests and expressed a desire to become a better sponsor of the ecosystem.

The article extracts three noteworthy points from Tencent’s reply:

Positioning as a mirror site: SkillHub is described as a "localised mirror" that clearly credits ClawHub as its data source rather than claiming originality.

Impressive data impact: In its first week, SkillHub handled 870 000 downloads and 180 GB of traffic while pulling only 1 GB from the upstream, dramatically reducing bandwidth pressure on the original site.

Willingness to contribute: The statement notes team members’ active code contributions and a stated ambition to be a better sponsor.

OpenClaw’s rapid growth is highlighted – under six months it amassed over 250 k stars on GitHub, making it one of the fastest‑growing projects, which fuels worldwide teams building localized products on top of it.

The situation reflects a long‑standing tension in open‑source ecosystems, where heavy usage often coexists with limited reciprocal support. Unlike many projects, OpenClaw remains actively maintained, requiring ongoing server, maintenance, and development resources.

Both parties have engaged publicly without escalation, marking a relatively rational start to what could evolve into concrete cooperation or sponsorship arrangements.

Readers are invited to share their views on the controversy.