Scripts
Skill oaustegard/claude-skills/plugins/knowledge-and-memory/skills/creating-kb/scripts
Query a portable, embedding-free lexical knowledgebase bundled as a `.skill`. Use when the user references this KB or asks a question whose answer is in its corpus ({{SOURCE}}). Retrieval is BM25 over a precomputed inverted index — there is no embedding model, so YOU expand the query into search terms before searching. Bundle holds index.json + chunks.jsonl + search.js + search.py; pure stdlib, no install, no network.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add oaustegard/claude-skills --skill scriptsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
SKILL.md
5.8 KB, ~1.4k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
lexical-kb — query an embedding-free knowledgebase
This KB has no semantic search and no embedding model. Retrieval is pure lexical BM25 over a precomputed inverted index. That design moves one job onto you: bridging the gap between how the user phrases a question and how the corpus phrases the answer. An embedding model would do this with a vector; here you are the semantic layer — you expand the query into terms before searching.
Corpus: {{SOURCE}} ({{CHUNK_COUNT}} chunks).
The retrieval protocol — follow every step
A raw user question fed straight to BM25 underperforms: it matches only the exact words the user happened to use. The expansion step is what makes lexical retrieval competitive with embeddings. Do not skip it.
-
Read the question. Extract
coreterms — the essential nouns, proper nouns, and identifiers the answer MUST contain. These carry full weight. -
Generate
expandterms — synonyms, morphological variants (plural/verb forms), acronym expansions and contractions, and adjacent concepts. These carry lower weight. This is the work the missing embedding model would have done. Be generous: 5–15 expansion terms is normal. -
Run the searcher. It ships in this bundle in two equivalent runtimes —
node search.jsorpython3 search.py, identical flags and identical results. Use whichever your environment has. Pass the user's original question via--queryAND your term groups — expansion is additive, it never replaces the user's words:node search.js \ --query "how does centered simhash differ from random projection?" \ --core "simhash" --core "centered" \ --expand "random projection" --expand "hyperplane" --expand "LSH" \ --expand "binary quantization" --expand "hamming distance" \ --k 5--core/--expandare repeatable; pass phrases, the searcher tokenizes them. The--queryterms contribute at a low floor weight so a curated synonym can lift a result but can never drop a doc the literal question would have matched. Defaults: core 1.0, expand 0.4, query-floor 0.25, top-k 5. Keep expansion targeted — terms too generic ("system", "process") leak into unrelated chunks and blur the ranking. A precise word can mislead too if it is polysemous: prefer the disambiguating phrase as one--coreterm (e.g.--core "centered simhash") over a bare ambiguous word (--core "centered", which also matches "centered around …" in unrelated chunks). The passage extractor is lexical too, so it will highlight the wrong sense rather than correct it. -
Read the returned chunks. Answer from them, and cite chunk ids inline. The chunks are the source of truth the user installed. When a chunk contradicts your prior knowledge, the chunk wins — say so. When the chunks do not contain the answer, say that plainly rather than filling the gap from memory.
When you cannot expand — RM3 fallback
If the query is outside any domain you can expand confidently, pass it raw with pseudo-relevance feedback. The searcher harvests expansion terms from the corpus's own top hits — model-free, weaker than your expansion, and prone to drift when the first pass is off-topic, so prefer real expansion when you can:
node search.js --query "the user's raw question" --rm3 --k 5
Metadata filtering
Each chunk carries structured meta (e.g. title, source_path, section).
Filter on it with --filter (repeatable). Filtering narrows by attribute; it
does not rank — combine it with term search.
node search.js --core "factions" --filter "section=blog" --filter "date>=2025" --k 5
Operators: =, !=, ~ (substring), >, >=, <, <= (numeric when both
sides parse, else lexicographic — ISO dates sort correctly).
Passage vs. full document
Ranking uses the whole chunk (best recall), but each hit's text is by default
the query-densest passage of that chunk (~1200 chars), not the entire chunk —
so your reasoning context is signal, not the surrounding noise of a long document.
Each matched sentence keeps its neighbours (--context, default 1 each side) so
it reads in context rather than as an orphaned fragment, and nearby matches merge
into contiguous passages; ' … ' marks elisions between them. When a hit is a
passage, the result carries full_chars (the chunk's full length). If you need
the complete document for a hit — broader context, a quote in a section the
passage elided — re-run with --snippet 0:
node search.js --query "…" --core "…" --snippet 0 --k 3
Tune with --snippet 2000/600 (budget) and --context 2/0 (neighbours).
Output
The searcher prints JSON: {"hits": [{id, score, text, meta, full_chars?}, ...]},
sorted by descending BM25 score. text is the focused passage (or the full chunk
if it was already short / --snippet 0); full_chars appears only when text
is a passage. Surface the top hits to the user with their ids, then answer using
them as authoritative context.
Mechanics
- Pure stdlib — Node or Python. No
npm install/pip install, no model download, no network. - The bundle is self-contained:
search.js+search.py(pick one),index.json,chunks.jsonl. Run the searcher from inside the bundle directory (it defaults--indexto its own location) or pass--index /path/to/bundle.