CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

grasp

Verify understanding after AI work through intent-scented entry points. Type: (ResultUngrasped, User, VERIFY, Result) → VerifiedUnderstanding. Alias: Katalepsis(κατάληψις).

46

Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./katalepsis/skills/grasp/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

48%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The protocol is rigorously specified with clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, and concrete gate templates, but it is severely over-long and repeats core concepts (especially Horizon) across many sections. Most formal material is inlined rather than progressively disclosed.

Suggestions

Consolidate the Horizon definition to a single location and cross-reference it elsewhere; the same edge/admissibility/opacity content currently appears in the TYPES block, Gap Taxonomy, a dedicated detection section, Rule 14a, and Phase 3 step 3.

Move the FLOW/MORPHISM/TYPES/PHASE TRANSITIONS formal blocks and the 17 Rules into separate reference files (e.g. references/formal-model.md, references/rules.md), leaving SKILL.md as an overview that links one level deep.

Trim philosophical etymology and redundant restatements of the same invariant; trust Claude to carry a definition once introduced.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 494-line body is noticeably verbose: the Horizon concept is restated across the TYPES block, the Gap Taxonomy table, a dedicated detection section, Rule 14a, and the Phase 3 preemption step, and philosophical etymology ('Stoic philosophy meaning a grasping firmly') pads rather than instructs. It does not extensively explain concepts Claude already knows (it is a bespoke protocol), so it stays above 1, but the repeated re-derivation of the same definitions is clear padding.

2 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, copy-pasteable Constitution gate templates and record() call templates are present, but they are interspersed with a large volume of non-executable formal notation (FLOW, MORPHISM, TYPES, PHASE TRANSITIONS symbols) that does not translate directly into action, leaving the actionable guidance incomplete relative to the whole.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases are clearly sequenced (0 → 1 → 2 → 3 → LOOP → CONVERGENCE) with explicit validation checkpoints (zero-gap confirmation, coverage check, convergence evidence) and feedback loops (misconception → reasoning inquiry → correction → resume; Reopen re-enters Phase 3), though the density slightly hurts legibility.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

One reference (references/round-composition.md) is well-signaled with a precise read-trigger in Rule 8, but the SKILL.md itself is a near-monolithic 494-line wall with formal blocks, taxonomies, and 17 rules inlined that could be split into separate files, so structure is only partial.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

46%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description states a clear purpose but is written in the protocol's internal formal vocabulary rather than user-facing trigger language, and it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. It is distinctive but weak on natural trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases users actually say (e.g., 'Use when the user says "help me understand", "explain this", "walk me through", or signals they haven't grasped recent AI work').

Replace or supplement the formal 'Type: (ResultUngrasped, User, VERIFY, Result) → VerifiedUnderstanding' signature with one or two plain-language capabilities a user would recognize.

Drop or de-emphasize the 'Alias: Katalepsis(κατάληψις)' jargon from the description; keep philosophical naming inside the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain (verifying comprehension of AI work) and one concrete action ('Verify understanding... through intent-scented entry points') but does not enumerate several specific actions, and the 'Type:' formal signature is abstract rather than a listed capability.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is stated clearly (verify understanding after AI work) but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or concrete trigger guidance — 'after AI work' only weakly implies the when — so per the rubric cap completeness stays at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Aside from 'understanding' and 'verify', the description leans on technical jargon ('intent-scented entry points', 'VerifiedUnderstanding', 'Katalepsis') and omits the natural phrases users actually say ('help me understand', 'explain this', 'walk me through').

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The comprehension-verification niche is fairly distinct and the specialized vocabulary lowers conflict risk, though 'verify understanding after AI work' is broad enough to lightly overlap with general explanation skills.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.