Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

sem

Entity-aware code change analysis using the pi-sem tools. Use when the user asks what changed, wants blast radius or affected tests, needs focused context for a function/class, wants review help on a commit/branch/PR, or asks to compare semantic diff with raw git diff. Prefer sem_context and sem_impact; use sem_diff selectively for summaries and reviews.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

sem

Use the pi-sem tools as a semantic lens, not as a universal replacement for raw git diff.

Default decision tree

Choose the smallest useful tool first:

  1. Focused understanding of one entity → sem_context

    • Best for a single function, method, class, block, or config section
    • Prefer this before reading a whole large file
  2. Blast radius / affected tests / hidden dependents → sem_impact

    • Use when reasoning about what could break
    • Prefer scope=tests for test selection
    • Prefer scope=all when validating broader impact
  3. Structural inventory of a file → sem_entities

    • Use before drilling into a suspicious file
    • Good for large files and mixed code/config files
  4. What changed across a commit/range/working tree → sem_diff

    • Use for semantic summaries, entity counts, and review overviews
    • Do not default to it when you only need exact patch details or a single entity
  5. History / ownership of an entity → sem_log, sem_blame

    • Use for regressions, archaeology, and ownership questions

Review workflow

For commit / branch / PR review:

  1. Run sem_diff once for a semantic overview
  2. Pick the riskiest changed entities
  3. Run sem_impact on those entities
  4. Run sem_context on the suspicious ones you need to understand deeply
  5. Confirm final findings with raw git diff, read, or direct file inspection before citing line numbers

For snapshot / folder review:

  1. Start with sem_entities
  2. Use sem_context on the most relevant entities
  3. Use sem_impact only after you identify something suspicious

Important caveats

  • sem diff --format json is not always smaller than raw git diff
  • sem may under-cover tests, assets, generated files, or non-semantic glue code
  • Do not cite sem output alone as final evidence for line-level review comments
  • If semantic coverage looks incomplete, fall back to raw git diff, read, grep, and file inspection

Good prompts / tool choices

  • “What changed in this commit?” → sem_diff
  • “What tests are affected by this function?” → sem_impact with scope=tests
  • “Give me focused context for this class without reading the whole file.” → sem_context
  • “What is in this Terraform file?” → sem_entities
  • “How did this function evolve?” → sem_log

Anti-patterns

Avoid these habits:

  • Running sem_diff repeatedly when sem_context would answer the question faster
  • Using only raw git diff for entity counts or blast radius questions
  • Treating sem_impact as infallible; verify surprising results with file reads and grep
  • Writing review findings from semantic summaries without checking the actual changed code

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Explain a GitHub pull request as an English Markdown walkthrough and return a Plannotator share link. Use for PR explanations, walkthroughs, or review preparation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

Review, triage, and resolve PR review comments. Use when user asks to check PR comments, address review feedback, fix issues raised in review, reply to reviewers, or resolve review threads.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

Codify project review rules as deterministic guards — ast-grep structural rules (with TDD-style rule tests) for mechanical checks, REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md for qualitative ones, wired into the project gate / wf verify. Use when the user wants to define review rules, turn a repeated review finding into a lint/guard, or set up ast-grep in a project.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

wf

Free

Vytvoř workflow kontrakt z dosavadní diskuse — zapíše ~/Workspace/specs/<projekt>/<název>/contract.md (české tělo + strojový frontmatter) a zlintuje ho wf-gate. Použij, když uživatel řekne /wf nebo chce z probraného problému udělat kontrakt. Nikdy neimplementuje.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

České vysvětlení změny kódu z kontraktu, ref range nebo PR — pozadí, intuice, průchod kódem, důkazy, UAT a kvíz. Volá wf-impl po UAT nebo uživatel ručně.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

Dirigent jednoho workflow kontraktu ve svém super.engineering worktree — deleguje implementaci na subagenta, mezi fázemi pouští wf-gate, review předá skill wf-review, otevře draft PR (guardovaný), vyřeší komentáře, spustí UAT. Použij, když task session říká, že se má kontrakt provést přes wf-impl.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tomsej/pi-ext78Updated Sep 4, 2026

See all skills by tomsej

Report a problem with this skill