CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

semantica

Semantica full-stack knowledge graph skill for context graphs, decision intelligence, explainability, extraction, reasoning, visualization, ontology, provenance, policy, and export workflows.

39

Quality

36%

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 ./.claude/skills/semantica/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%

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

The skill is cleanly organized and stays lean, but it offers only abstract task-selection guidance with no concrete commands, code, or real bundle files behind its filesystem-based promises, so it does not give Claude executable direction. Workflow sequencing is present but lacks the concrete decision criteria and validation checkpoints needed for graph operations.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance for at least the core workflows (e.g., a SPARQL/Datalog example, an extraction command, an export snippet) instead of only naming capability areas.

Provide the reference files the body implies exist (e.g., references/EXTRACTION.md, references/REASONING.md, references/EXPORT.md) and link them explicitly so progressive disclosure is real rather than asserted.

Turn 'choose the right workflow' into an explicit decision table mapping user request types to specific workflows, and add validation checkpoints for batch/destructive operations like ingestion merges and deduplication.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is reasonably short and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'When to use', 'What this Skill contains', and prompt-pattern sections heavily restate the same capability areas already in the description, padding the token budget with repetition rather than earning each token with new information.

2 / 3

Actionability

The guidance is descriptive rather than instructive: it tells Claude to 'choose the right workflow' and lists capability areas, but provides no concrete code, commands, callable APIs, or executable examples, matching the 'describes rather than instructs' anchor.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 'How Claude should use this Skill' section gives a numbered sequence (identify, load, choose workflow, read extra files if needed), so a sequence is present, but there are no validation checkpoints or concrete decision criteria for which workflow to pick, leaving the actual multi-step graph operations unsequenced.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is organized into clear sections and explicitly states it relies on filesystem-loaded reference files 'only when needed', but no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files actually exist, so the promised progressive-disclosure structure is asserted but not backed by real files to navigate to.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

37%

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 catalogues a wide range of capability areas but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and reads more as a feature inventory than concrete actions, leaving Claude without clear invocation guidance. Specificity and trigger-term quality are moderate but not comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks about knowledge graphs, entities/relations/triplets, semantic extraction, or graph analytics').

Replace capability-area buzzwords ('decision intelligence', 'provenance', 'ontology', 'policy') with concrete, user-sayable actions ('extract entities and relations', 'find influential nodes', 'trace where a node came from', 'validate an ontology').

Narrow the scope so the description names 3-5 concrete actions rather than enumerating twelve abstract workflow areas, reducing overlap with other skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a broad domain (context graphs, decision intelligence, explainability, extraction, reasoning, visualization, ontology, provenance, policy, export) but lists categories/workflows rather than multiple concrete actions a user can invoke, falling short of the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It answers 'what' by enumerating capability areas but contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should load it; per the guidelines, a missing explicit when clause caps completeness at 2, and here the when is entirely absent.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural terms users would say ('knowledge graphs', 'extraction', 'export') but leans on capability-area jargon ('decision intelligence', 'provenance', 'ontology', 'policy') rather than common variations a user would naturally phrase, missing the strong natural-keyword coverage of the level-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Semantica' product name plus knowledge-graph framing gives it a recognizable niche, but the very broad capability list (extraction, reasoning, ontology, policy, export, visualization) overlaps substantially with several other skills, so it could still trigger for the wrong skill.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

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.