SKILLEMALL.ai

AB kb-keyword-graph

Keyword-graph reader for a knowledge base. Trigger when the user wants to understand a KB — "what's in it / what does it cover / knowledge structure / topic distribution / main themes / how do these materials relate", or explicitly says keyword graph / knowledge graph / word cloud / 关键词图谱 / 知识结构 / 主题分布. It pulls the KB's three-level keyword tree and interprets it four ways: ① structure (knowledge outline) ② graph (progressive interactive ring chart) ③ topics (topic distribution) ④ relate (how two keywords relate in the tree). Covers even when the user doesn't say "graph" (e.g. "what's in this library"). Current backend: 2brain (locate a library by base_id). Read-only — it never ingests, builds, edits, or Q&A-chats a KB, and does not route to Feishu/Lark Wiki or cloud docs.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: ywc668 v1.1.0 MIT-0 9 files body ≈ 2 236 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

Keyword-graph reader for a knowledge base.

As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice

ReferenceSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
90
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
65/100
Nearly there
Result and completion w 14
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Tools and files w 18
60
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Steps. 16 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2236 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 783: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 9 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 4)
    • +3All 2 scripts are documented
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill is mostly a read-only keyword-graph tool, but it includes local-folder and Elasticsearch access that conflicts with its 2brain-only safety claims.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 18 Jul 2026