Assess knowledge
Portable, single-purpose skills for coding agents that orient, map, plan, review, and reason over your code — read / plan / report, never editing behind your back.
npx -y skills add tacticaldoll/fornax --skill assess-knowledgeAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 19 days oldThe repository was created 19 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when an agent needs to assess a conversation for knowledge worth extracting; identifies topics, maturity, and internalize/externalize tendency without creating artifacts or recommending next steps.
SKILL.md
4.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Assess conversation knowledge
Use this skill to scan conversation content and identify topics with extractable knowledge value — a structured assessment for the user's decision-making.
Governing intuition: name what is worth extracting; do not prescribe what to do with it. Include even thin topics — omission is itself a prescription — and never inflate maturity or volume to justify extraction.
Input: the conversation to assess — by default the current one; if the user names a span or topic, scope to that.
Boundary: assesses and reports only — does not create artifacts, modify files, invoke other skills, or recommend next steps.
Workflow
Phase 1: Thread Identification
Scan the conversation chronologically. Identify distinct discussion topics by semantic shift: a new subject, question, problem, or decision path starts a new thread.
Use this granularity rule:
- Split compound topics only when they reach independent conclusions.
- Keep topics merged when they share one conclusion chain.
- Include low-value or thin topics; omission is a form of prescription.
Phase 2: Per-Topic Assessment
Assess each topic independently across nature, maturity, attribution, volume, and expansion cues.
Nature
Classify with the first matching test:
| # | Test | Nature |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Records a decision process with alternatives evaluated | Decision Record |
| 2 | Derives principles applicable beyond the current project | Universal Principle |
| 3 | Solves a specific problem with root cause analysis | Problem Diagnosis |
| 4 | Documents a procedure or how-to | Operational Knowledge |
| 5 | Describes what exists or what was observed | Factual Record |
Maturity
| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Nascent | Initial observation; no iteration or conclusion |
| Developing | Has structure, some iteration, or partial conclusion |
| Mature | Multiple iterations, refined conclusion, and clear formulation |
Raise maturity when the conversation includes trial-and-error cycles, challenge-and-revision exchanges, explicit trade-off comparison, or convergence on a principle.
Attribution
| Tendency | Signal |
|---|---|
| Internalize | Universal principle, methodology, or thinking pattern; value is in understanding |
| Externalize | Project-specific decision, configuration, architecture constraint, or durable rule; value is in persistence |
| Both | Core insight should be understood personally, while the specific application should be documented |
| Neither | Topic has conversation value but no clear artifact value |
Volume
| Estimate | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Sufficient | At least 3 refined points, clear structure, and enough depth for a standalone artifact |
| Marginal | Has substance but fits better as a section within a larger artifact |
| Insufficient | Brief mention, no depth, or not worth extracting |
Expansion Cues
Expansion cues describe latent structure and evidence gaps for later use. They are not next steps.
Include short cues such as:
- Narrative arc: how the topic developed over time.
- Decision tension: alternatives, trade-offs, or redirects.
- Evidence gap: what is missing or unsupported.
- Conceptual insight: the transferable understanding embedded in the topic.
- Durable claim: the specific decision, rule, or constraint the topic asserts.
- Boundary warning: what should not be generalized.
Output Format
# Conversation Knowledge Assessment
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Topics identified**: [N]
| # | Topic | Nature | Maturity | Attribution | Volume | Expansion Cues | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | Decision Record | Mature | Externalize | Sufficient | Decision tension: ... | ... |
| 2 | ... | Universal Principle | Developing | Internalize | Marginal | Conceptual insight: ... | ... |
The table is the complete output. Do not add a recommendations section, action list, or next-step suggestions.
Rules
- Keep zero project coupling: do not reference a project's directory structure, governance framework, skill inventory, or toolchain unless it is the topic being assessed.
- Treat expansion cues as diagnostic metadata, not recommendations.
- Assess honestly: do not inflate maturity or volume to justify extraction.
- Preserve completeness: every identified topic must appear in the table.
- Distinguish value assessment from content recall. A request to "summarize our discussion" is content recall; a request for "what is worth extracting" is value assessment.