# property-assessor

Decision-grade residential property assessment skill for OpenClaw.

This skill is for evaluating a condo, townhouse, house, or similar residential property from an address or listing URL and ending with a practical recommendation such as `buy`, `pass`, or `only below X`.

## Overview

`property-assessor` is a workflow skill, not just a scraper. It is meant to:

- normalize the target property across listing sources
- build a baseline fact set
- review listing photos before making condition claims
- compare the property against nearby or same-building comps
- underwrite taxes, HOA, insurance, and realistic carrying costs
- identify risk drivers
- produce a concise but decision-grade verdict

The skill is designed for real-world purchase decisions, especially when you need a fast read on whether a property is worth pursuing.

## Accepted inputs

The skill can start from any of:

- a street address
- a Zillow listing URL
- a HAR listing URL
- an address plus user constraints such as:
  - investment only
  - owner-occupant
  - long-term rental
  - short-term rental
  - target distance/location requirements

Preferred starting point is the address when available, because it makes source reconciliation easier.

## Core workflow

Default operating sequence:

1. Normalize the address and property type.
2. Discover accessible listing and public-record sources for the same property.
3. Establish a baseline fact set from the best available source.
4. Cross-check the same property on other sources.
5. Review listing photos before making condition claims.
6. Pull same-building comps for condos or nearby comps for houses/townhomes.
7. Underwrite carry costs and risk drivers.
8. End with a specific recommendation and fair-value range.

## Source priority

Unless the user asks otherwise, preferred source order is:

1. Zillow
2. Redfin
3. Realtor.com
4. HAR / Homes.com / brokerage mirrors
5. county or appraisal pages

Use high-quality mirrors to confirm facts, not to override a clearly better primary listing without reason.

## Minimum data to capture

For the target property, capture as many of these as the sources support:

- address
- list price or last known list price
- property type
- beds / baths
- square footage
- lot size if relevant
- year built
- HOA fee and included services
- taxes
- days on market
- price history
- parking
- waterfront / flood clues
- subdivision or building name
- same-building or nearby active inventory
- listing photos and visible condition cues
- included appliances and obvious missing appliances
- flooring mix, especially carpet

## Photo-review requirement

Photo review is mandatory when the listing sources expose photos.

Do not make strong condition claims from structured text alone if photos are available.

### What counts as acceptable photo access

Preferred photo sources are:

- a scrollable all-photos page
- an expanded photo grid
- a photo page that exposes the full set
- a modal/lightbox only if the site does not provide a better all-photos path

Do not treat these as full photo review by themselves:

- the listing hero image
- a collage preview
- a photo count without image access
- listing shell text that mentions photos

### What to inspect in the photos

At minimum, evaluate:

- overall finish level: dated, average, lightly updated, fully updated
- kitchen condition: cabinets, counters, backsplash, appliances
- bathroom condition: vanity, tile, surrounds, fixtures
- flooring: tile, vinyl, laminate, hardwood, carpet
- obvious make-ready issues: paint, trim, wear, damage, mismatched finishes
- visible missing items: refrigerator, washer/dryer, range hood, dishwasher
- signs of deferred maintenance or water intrusion
- exterior and common-area condition where visible
- waterfront-facing elements, balconies, decks, sliders, and windows when relevant

### If photo review is incomplete

If the agent cannot access enough photos to make a credible read:

- say so explicitly
- lower confidence
- avoid strong turnkey claims
- continue the broader underwriting work, but mark condition as limited-confidence

## Zillow and HAR integration

This skill now expects the dedicated `web-automation` extractors first instead of fragile ad hoc gallery automation.

### Zillow first

Run:

```bash
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
node zillow-photos.js "<zillow-listing-url>"
```

Successful Zillow photo access means one of these happened:

- the `See all photos` / `See all X photos` path opened a usable all-photos experience, or
- the rendered Zillow listing shell already exposed the full direct Zillow image set and the extracted count matches the announced count

Important rule:
- when the extractor returns `imageUrls`, that returned set is the photo-review set

For smaller listings, review the full extracted set when practical. For a 20-30 photo listing, that usually means all photos.

### HAR fallback

If Zillow does not expose a reliable image set, use HAR next:

```bash
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
node har-photos.js "<har-listing-url>"
```

Successful HAR photo access means:

- the HAR listing opened
- `Show all photos` / `View all photos` exposed the photo page
- direct `pics.harstatic.com` image URLs were extracted

As with Zillow, the returned `imageUrls` are the review set for condition analysis.

### Practical photo-source order

Use this action order:

1. Zillow extractor
2. HAR extractor
3. Realtor.com photo page
4. brokerage mirror or other accessible listing mirror

Do not stop after the first failed source if a fallback source can still expose the photos.

## Approval-safe execution

For chat-driven property assessments, prefer file-based commands under:

```text
~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
```

Good command shape:

- `node check-install.js`
- `node zillow-photos.js "<url>"`
- `node har-photos.js "<url>"`

Avoid when possible:

- `node -e "..."`
- `node --input-type=module -e "..."`

Why this matters:

- OpenClaw exec approvals are easier to allowlist for stable file paths
- inline interpreter eval is more likely to trigger approval friction
- the installed approval allowlist is typically already scoped to the `*.js` files under the `web-automation/scripts` directory

## Make-ready normalization

Condition should be translated into a rough make-ready range so pricing and comp comparisons stay realistic.

Use simple buckets:

- light make-ready
  - paint, fixtures, minor hardware, small patching
- medium make-ready
  - partial flooring replacement, appliance replacement, bathroom refresh
- heavy make-ready
  - significant kitchen/bath work, widespread flooring, visible deferred maintenance

Call out carpet separately when present, especially in bedrooms, stairs, or living areas.

## Underwriting expectations

The final assessment should show a simple carrying-cost view including:

- principal and interest if available
- taxes per month
- HOA per month if applicable
- insurance estimate or explicit uncertainty
- realistic carry range after maintenance, vacancy, and property-specific risk

Strong caution flags include:

- high HOA relative to price or expected rent
- older waterfront or coastal exposure
- unknown reserve or assessment history for condos
- many active units in the same building or micro-area
- stale days on market with weak price action
- no clear rent support

## Output contract

The final answer should stay concise but decision-grade.

Recommended structure:

1. Snapshot
2. What I like
3. What I do not like
4. Comp view
5. Underwriting / carry view
6. Risks and diligence items
7. Verdict with fair-value range and offer guidance

The output must explicitly include:

- `Photo source attempts: ...`
- `Photo review: completed via <source>`
  or `Photo review: not completed`

If photo review was completed:

- summarize the condition read from the photos
- mention obvious finish level, flooring, appliance presence, and make-ready signals

If not completed:

- mark condition confidence as limited
- explain why photo access was incomplete

## Example validation flow

Use these commands for a known-good regression check.

### Verify extractor prerequisites

```bash
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
node check-install.js
npm run test:photos
```

### Zillow regression check

```bash
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
node zillow-photos.js "https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4141-Whiteley-Dr-Corpus-Christi-TX-78418/2103723704_zpid/"
```

Expected shape:

- `complete: true`
- `expectedPhotoCount: 29`
- `photoCount: 29`

### HAR regression check

```bash
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/web-automation/scripts
node har-photos.js "https://www.har.com/homedetail/4141-whiteley-dr-corpus-christi-tx-78418/14069438"
```

Expected shape:

- `complete: true`
- `expectedPhotoCount: 29`
- `photoCount: 29`

### Skill-level validation

When testing `property-assessor` itself, confirm the resulting assessment:

- attempts Zillow first
- falls back to HAR if needed
- references actual photo access, not just listing text
- includes the required `Photo source attempts` line
- includes the required `Photo review` line
- makes condition claims consistent with the reviewed image set

## Related files

- installed skill instructions:
  - `~/.openclaw/workspace/skills/property-assessor/SKILL.md`
- repo skill instructions:
  - `skills/property-assessor/SKILL.md`
- photo extractor docs:
  - `docs/web-automation.md`