graph-engineering
Teaches an agent graph engineering — both halves. Knowledge graphs (ontology design, entity/relation/event extraction, fusion, GraphRAG/memory serving; distilled and translated from Southeast University's graduate Knowledge Graph course, npubird/KnowledgeGraphCourse, 4.4K stars) and task graphs (agent orchestration — parallel fan-out, verifier separation, the stop rule, human gates). Use when asked to build a knowledge graph, extract entities/relations from text, design an ontology, dedupe/merge entities, add graph memory or GraphRAG to an agent, orchestrate multi-agent workflows as a graph, or LEARN graph engineering — in teaching mode the agent explains each stage with worked examples and generates visual diagram artifacts.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見る含まれるファイル(6)
- SKILL.md7.7 KB
- references/curriculum.md4.3 KB
- references/extraction.md5.4 KB
- references/fusion-and-llm.md4.7 KB
- references/modeling.md4.6 KB
- references/task-graphs.md3.4 KB
SKILL.md(原文)
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Graph Engineering
Graph engineering is the discipline of designing the structures agents work through — not the prompts. It has two halves:
- Knowledge graphs — what agents remember. Nodes are entities and facts, edges are relationships with time and provenance. This file's 9-stage pipeline covers it, distilled from Southeast University's graduate KG course (https://github.com/npubird/KnowledgeGraphCourse, Prof. Peng Wang), translated to English and adapted for LLM-era agents.
- Task graphs — how agents work. Nodes are jobs, edges are execution dependencies: parallel fan-out, separate verifier contexts, the stop rule, the human gate. Read references/task-graphs.md when the request is about orchestrating agents rather than building memory.
Core mental model: a knowledge graph is a product with a schema, not a pile of triples. Quality comes from the pipeline order — model the domain BEFORE extracting, fuse BEFORE storing, evaluate at every stage.
Teaching Mode
When the user wants to LEARN graph engineering (rather than build something), teach it — do not just execute. Rules:
- Anchor every stage in the user's own domain: ask for one real project or dataset, then use it as the running example through all stages.
- Generate visual artifacts as you teach. Concepts in this discipline are shapes; show
them. For each major concept, produce a small diagram the user can keep — mermaid diagrams
(flowchart for the pipeline and task graphs,
graph LRfor example ontologies and subgraphs) or a single self-contained HTML page when interactivity helps. At minimum: the 9-stage pipeline, a 3-type ontology drawn from the user's domain, one extracted subgraph (5-10 nodes) from a real sample, and the diamond pattern with the user's own jobs as nodes. - Teach in the pipeline's order, one stage per exchange, each ending with a small exercise ("write 3 competency questions for your project") before moving on.
- Close by assembling what was built during the lesson into a starter
ontology.yamland a drawn task graph for the user's first real build.
The 9-Stage Pipeline
Run stages in order. For small projects stages 4-6 collapse into one extraction pass, but never skip stages 3 (ontology) or 8 (fusion) — they are where real-world graphs fail.
-
Scope & value test — Confirm a graph beats a simpler structure. A graph pays off when queries are multi-hop ("who worked with X on projects using Y"), when entities recur across documents, or when relationships ARE the data. If lookups are single-hop, use a table and stop.
-
Knowledge representation choice — Pick how facts are encoded: property graph (Neo4j-style, pragmatic default), RDF triples (interop/standards), or plain typed edges in JSON/SQLite (small scale). Decide now how time and provenance attach to every fact.
-
Ontology modeling — Define entity types, relation types (with domain/range), and attributes BEFORE extraction. Start minimal: 5-15 entity types, 10-30 relation types. Two rules from the course: every relation gets a precise verb name (
ACQUIRED, notRELATED_TO), and if two types are always queried together, merge them. Details and worked examples: references/modeling.md -
Entity extraction (NER) — Extract typed entities from sources. Method ladder: exact rules/dictionaries for closed vocabularies → LLM extraction with the ontology in the prompt for open text. Always extract with span + source pointer for provenance.
-
Relation extraction — Extract typed edges between recognized entities. Constrain the LLM to the ontology's relation list with domain/range checks; reject edges whose endpoints have incompatible types. This one validation step removes most hallucinated structure.
-
Event extraction — For dynamic domains (news, logs, transactions), extract events as first-class nodes (trigger + typed arguments + time), not just static edges. Extraction methods, prompt patterns, and failure modes for stages 4-6: references/extraction.md
-
Quality gate — Before fusion, sample and score: entity precision (are extracted entities real and correctly typed?), relation precision (does the source sentence actually assert the edge?). Fix the prompt/rules, not the output, then re-run. Target ≥90% precision on a 50-item sample before proceeding — recall improves with more passes; bad precision poisons the graph permanently.
-
Knowledge fusion — Merge duplicates within and across sources: same real-world entity, different surface forms ("SEU" = "Southeast University" = "东南大学"). Blocking + matching + merge policy. Skipping this is the #1 cause of useless graphs. Matching strategies: references/fusion-and-llm.md
-
Serve to LLMs (KG × LLM) — Make the graph useful to agents: GraphRAG retrieval (subgraph → context), graph-as-memory (agent writes facts back through stages 4-8), and LLM-as-reasoner over paths. Patterns and pitfalls: references/fusion-and-llm.md
Working Rules
- Schema first, always. Extraction without an ontology produces a "graph" that is really a word cloud with arrows. If the user resists schema design, build the minimal 5-type ontology from 3 sample documents and show it for approval.
- Provenance on every fact. Each node/edge stores
source,extracted_at, and confidence. Non-negotiable — fusion (stage 8) and trust both depend on it. - Incremental over big-bang. Process a 10-document pilot through all 9 stages before scaling. The pilot exposes ontology gaps at 1% of the cost.
- LLM extraction is stage machinery, not the pipeline. The LLM slots into stages 4-6; the surrounding schema, validation, and fusion are what make the output a knowledge graph.
Reference Files
- references/curriculum.md — Full translated curriculum of the source course with per-lecture summaries and links to the original Chinese slide decks. Read when the user wants theory depth, the academic grounding, or the original materials.
- references/modeling.md — Knowledge representation & ontology engineering (course lectures 2-3). Read during stages 2-3.
- references/extraction.md — Entity, relation, and event extraction from rules to LLM prompting (lectures 4-7). Read during stages 4-7.
- references/fusion-and-llm.md — Knowledge fusion and KG × LLM integration (lectures 8-9). Read during stages 8-9.
Credits
Distilled and translated from 东南大学《知识图谱》研究生课程 (Southeast University graduate course on Knowledge Graphs), Prof. Peng Wang — https://github.com/npubird/KnowledgeGraphCourse. All original lecture PDFs are in Chinese; this skill is an independent English distillation adapted for AI-agent workflows.
レビュー
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
コメント
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。