CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

explain

Explain Semantica reasoning, decision logic, and graph results with traceability, causal context, and human-readable rationale.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/skills/explain/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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.

A tight, well-structured command reference that respects the token budget and organizes its two modes clearly. Its main weakness is executability: the examples reference `ctx` and `reasoning_result` objects whose acquisition is never shown, leaving the reader with API sketches rather than runnable steps.

Suggestions

Show how to obtain `ctx` and `reasoning_result` (e.g. the AgentContext construction or where the reasoning result comes from) so the code snippets are copy-paste executable.

Define the accepted values for `--detail <level>` (e.g. low|medium|high) and either document that `--path N` maps to causal-chain depth or rename the flag to `--depth` for consistency with `max_depth`.

Briefly state how to present the returned structures to the user (e.g. format decision factors as a bulleted list with confidence values) so the output step is as concrete as the API calls.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~40-line body is lean and code-first with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (usage, two subcommands, outputs) earns its tokens.

5 / 5

Actionability

Real imports and API signatures are shown, but both snippets depend on an undefined `ctx` and `reasoning_result` that are never acquired, so the code is not executable as written — concrete guidance with missing key details.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Two cleanly separated subcommand sections each pair code with expected output and `$ARGUMENTS` parsing is stated, but `--detail <level>` never defines valid levels and `--path N` is silently repurposed as `max_depth=depth` without explanation.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is well organized into a usage header plus one section per subcommand, which qualifies for full credit under the simple-skill guideline.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 clearly scopes the skill to the Semantica domain and names its explanation targets, but it leans on a single generic verb and provides no usage triggers. It is a serviceable "what" with a missing "when".

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks why a decision was reached, wants the reasoning behind a rule, or asks why a graph node is connected."

Replace the generic "Explain" with the distinct concrete actions the skill performs, e.g. "Trace decision factors, walk upstream/downstream causal chains, and surface rule traces with confidence scores."

Include natural synonyms users would say ("why", "caused", "trace", "justification") alongside the current domain vocabulary to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Explain Semantica reasoning, decision logic, and graph results" names the domain and three concrete target objects, but the single generic verb "Explain" is the only action, matching "names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive".

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (explaining reasoning, decisions, and graph results) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("explain", "reasoning", "decision", "graph", "causal", "rationale"), but common natural user phrasings like "why did this decision", "what caused", or "trace" are missing — some relevant keywords without variations or synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "Semantica" scoping creates a clear niche with minimal conflict against generic skills; only minor overlap risk with other semantica:* skills that also produce rationale.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

semantica-agi/semantica

Path

plugins/skills/explain/SKILL.md

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.