change

Track and inspect graph changes, diffs, temporal updates, and the impact of new data on Semantica knowledge graphs.

Quality

83%

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

Quality

Content

100%

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

The body is concise, executable, and well-organized, providing copy-paste-ready code for each subcommand without unnecessary explanation. It is a strong, tight skill body with no significant weaknesses.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no concept explanations or padding; it assumes Claude's competence and every line earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	Both subcommands provide real imports and executable calls (e.g. "from semantica.provenance.change_tracker import ChangeTracker" and "tracker.compute_diff(...)"), making the guidance copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Two clearly separated subcommands with usage and output descriptions are unambiguous, and the operations are simple/non-destructive, so the simple-skill allowance applies.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed and is organized into clear sections, satisfying the under-50-lines guidance; no bundle files exist to verify.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 is specific and clearly occupies a distinct niche, but it omits an explicit use-when trigger clause and relies on product jargon over natural user phrasing. Adding a "Use when..." sentence with plain-language triggers would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks what changed in a Semantica knowledge graph, wants to compare graph snapshots, or needs the history of a node."

Add natural user phrasings alongside jargon (e.g. "graph history", "what changed", "knowledge graph updates") to improve trigger-term coverage.

Keep the concise concrete-action list as-is; it is the strongest part of the description.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Track and inspect graph changes, diffs, temporal updates, and the impact of new data" names the Semantica/graph domain and lists multiple concrete actions, matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but has no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger clause, so the when-guidance is missing rather than explicit, capping completeness at 2 per the rubric guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant keywords ("graph changes", "diffs", "temporal updates") but leans on product-specific jargon ("Semantica knowledge graphs") and omits common natural variations a user would say, so it falls short of full trigger coverage.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Tied to the specific Semantica knowledge-graph niche with distinct diff/history triggers, it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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: semantica-agi/semantica
Path: plugins/skills/change/SKILL.md
Commit: 8406297

Reviewed: about 14 hours 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.