evidence-check
Skill0 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub
Surface evidence that is missing, manual, or expiring across the organization's measures — so nothing lapses before an audit
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ashe-li/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- jerseycheese/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- MichaelRDionne/clinical-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Kaagemusha/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 27, 2026
- chakmarebel/federal-proposal-copilottheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
- reutavidan/zetesis-plugintheir own version, first seen Aug 6, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- chakmarebel/federal-proposal-copilot★ 4same name
- jerseycheese/agent-skills★ 4same name
- ashe-li/agent-skills★ 2same name
- Kaagemusha/agent-skills★ 0same name
- MichaelRDionne/clinical-agent-skills★ 0same name
- reutavidan/zetesis-plugin★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- compliance-statusSkill
- fixSkill
- framework-readinessSkill
- remediateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Pull measures + their evidence: Call listMeasures (focus on IMPLEMENTED ones — those are the controls currently claimed as met), then …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Audit the evidence backing the organization's controls and flag what needs attention, from the user's own Vallorix instance.
Steps
- Pull measures + their evidence. Call
listMeasures(focus onIMPLEMENTEDones — those are the controls currently claimed as met), thenlistMeasureEvidencesfor each to get the attached evidence with its automation state (FULLY/PARTIALLY/AUTOMATION_READY/MANUAL) and expiry/validity dates. - Bucket the evidence:
- Expiring / expired — validity date passed or within 30 days. Highest priority: an implemented control with expired evidence will fail the audit.
- Manual, not yet automated —
MANUALwhere anAUTOMATION_READYpath exists: a candidate to connect a collector and stop doing it by hand. - Missing — an
IMPLEMENTEDmeasure with no evidence attached. That's a claim with no proof.
- Present a scannable report:
- Headline counts: "7 pieces of evidence expiring in 30 days · 12 still manual · 2 implemented controls with no evidence."
- A table per bucket: measure, evidence, state, expiry, framework(s) it supports.
- Recommend actions: refresh the expiring items first; for
AUTOMATION_READYmanual evidence, suggest connecting the relevant collector in Vallorix so it stays fresh automatically; for missing evidence, point to the measure that needs it. - End with the next step: "Want me to draft what to collect for the 2 unproven controls, or focus on the expiring batch first?"
Edge cases
- All evidence fresh and automated: "All implemented controls have current evidence; nothing expiring in 30 days. Clean."
- Large volume: group by framework and summarize; show the top at-risk items with "[N] more — filter by framework?"
- No implemented measures yet: point the user to
/vallorix:framework-readinessto see what to implement first.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

