CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

provenance

Trace data lineage, source attribution, audit trails, and provenance assertions in Semantica graphs.

52

Quality

57%

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/provenance/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 exemplary in conciseness and well-structured for a small skill, but the code examples are only partially executable (unbound placeholder variables, missing tracer construction in the audit example) and the workflows lack validation checkpoints. Actionability and workflow clarity are the main limitations.

Suggestions

Make the code snippets copy-paste ready: bind the placeholder variables (node_id, depth, since, actor) from `$ARGUMENTS` parsing or include a concrete example call with literal values.

In the `audit` example, either reuse the `tracer` from the first snippet or instantiate it, so each example stands alone as executable.

Add a light validation/checkpoint for the trace and audit outputs (e.g. 'Confirm validation status is not UNKNOWN before relying on the trace') to lift workflow clarity above the batch-operation cap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it states the command, shows minimal executable snippets, and describes output in a single line each, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

5 / 5

Actionability

The snippets show API calls but are partial — variables like node_id, depth, since, actor are unreferenced placeholders, there is no example invocation with real values, and the `audit` example omits construction of the tracer shown in the first example, leaving gaps for copy-paste use.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The two sub-commands are listed with one-line outputs, but audit-log inspection is a batch/read operation over graph changes with no validation or verification step (e.g. confirm a trace is complete, check validation status), so the sequence lacks explicit checkpoints.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well organized into short sections per sub-command with clear headers, and there are no misleading or nested references; it is under 50 lines with no need for external bundle files, so minor gaps are purely the absence of a deeper reference layer.

4 / 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 clearly names a specialized domain and a few concrete actions but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and natural user phrasing, capping completeness and trigger quality. It is concise and reasonably distinct from other skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks where a fact or node came from, who authored it, or wants to inspect the audit history of a Semantica graph.'

Include natural user phrasing and synonyms (e.g. 'data lineage', 'who created this', 'trace history', 'audit log') alongside the domain jargon.

Mirror the body's actual sub-tasks (trace, audit) more explicitly so the description matches the skill's full capability set.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (provenance) and 1-2 concrete actions ('Trace data lineage, source attribution, audit trails'), but coverage is high-level and not comprehensive across the skill's actual capabilities.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (trace lineage, attribution, audit trails) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'provenance', 'data lineage', 'source attribution', and 'audit trails' are domain jargon; the natural phrases a user would say ('who created this', 'where did this data come from', 'trace history') are missing.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Semantica-graph provenance niche is fairly distinct and unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, though 'audit trails' creates minor overlap with general logging/audit 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
semantica-agi/semantica
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.