ground

Validate structural mapping between abstract and concrete domains. Presents concrete instantiations when mapping uncertainty is detected. Type: (MappingUncertain, AI, GROUND, R) → ValidatedMapping

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./analogia/skills/ground/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%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 body is a thorough, well-sequenced protocol specification with strong workflow clarity and concrete procedural guidance, but it is dense and repetitive across multiple re-statements of the same phases and leaves one bundle file orphaned from the main navigation.

Suggestions

Link references/best-practices.md from the body (e.g., under Mode Activation or Protocol) so both reference files are discoverable, not just round-composition.md.

Consolidate the repeated phase descriptions across FLOW, MORPHISM, PHASE TRANSITIONS, LOOP, and TOOL GROUNDING into one canonical sequence with the others cross-referencing it, reducing redundancy.

Break the single-line FLOW block into labeled sub-steps or move the full operational trace into a reference file, keeping a concise phase summary inline in SKILL.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body does not explain concepts Claude already knows and is a novel protocol spec, but it repeats the same operational content across FLOW, MORPHISM, PHASE TRANSITIONS, LOOP, and TOOL GROUNDING and embeds a ~3000-char single-line FLOW block, so it could be tightened considerably.	3 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only protocol it gives concrete procedural guidance—explicit phases, state-machine transitions, predicates, and guards—with concrete usage examples in the referenced best-practices file; minor gaps stem from the abstract formal notation.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Phases 0→1→2→3 are explicitly sequenced with Constitution validation gates (FocusSelector, Qs, FocusChange), feedback loops (Repair → Phase 1 reconstruction and re-validation), and a bounded retry cap, matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	references/round-composition.md is well-signaled with a conditional 'Read ... when' cue, but references/best-practices.md is orphaned (never linked from the body) and the bulk formal spec is inlined, so structure is only partial.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 niche and two concrete actions but relies on technical jargon rather than natural trigger phrases and omits an explicit 'Use when...' clause. It is moderately specific and mostly distinct from sibling skills, yet its trigger discoverability for users is weak.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural user phrasing (e.g., 'Use when an abstract framework or pattern needs to be mapped onto a concrete system, or when you ask how a concept applies to your case').

Replace or supplement jargon ('mapping uncertainty', 'concrete instantiations') with plain-language trigger terms users actually say, such as 'how does this apply to my case' or 'show me a concrete example'.

Drop the formal type signature '(MappingUncertain, AI, GROUND, R) → ValidatedMapping' from the description; it adds jargon without aiding user discovery.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('structural mapping between abstract and concrete domains') and two concrete actions ('Validate structural mapping', 'Presents concrete instantiations'), matching anchor 3; not 4 because it does not list several specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (validate structural mapping), but the 'when' is only a runtime condition ('when mapping uncertainty is detected') with no explicit user-facing trigger guidance, so the missing 'Use when...' clause caps it at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'structural mapping', 'mapping uncertainty', and 'concrete instantiations' are technical jargon with no natural user phrasing and no 'Use when...' clause; only one or two generic domain keywords appear, so it sits just above anchor 1.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (abstract-to-concrete structural mapping validation) with distinct triggers, but documented sibling skills (/frame, /induce, /inquire, /contextualize) create minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: jongwony/epistemic-protocols
Path: analogia/skills/ground/SKILL.md
Commit: 3ffe94c

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.