agentleFS
Jason-hub-starJason-hub-star/model-orchestrator/skills/evidence-audit/SKILL.md

evidence-audit

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit work before it is shared or called complete, choosing a light decision review, a multi-lens defect search, or a deep high-risk review. Use for “audit”, “red team”, “final review”, “감사”, security and resilience checks, or release readiness. Finding issues is read-only unless fixes are explicitly requested.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Treat delegated findings as CANDIDATE, LIKELY, or REFUTED.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    If fixes were explicitly requested, assign disjoint paths, keep shared index/manifest files under one owner, then rerun the real project …

    line 20

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Evidence Audit

Choose one depth; do not run all three automatically.

  • Light: challenge one design decision with evidence and a counterexample.
  • Standard: inspect independent lenses such as security, state consistency, user-journey gaps, and operational recovery.
  • Deep: examine an irreversible architecture, security, safety, or migration decision from primary evidence.

Workflow

  1. Define scope and success criteria. Split lenses or file clusters so they do not overlap unnecessarily.
  2. Gather candidate findings with exact source locations, a concrete failure scenario, and a proposed decisive check.
  3. Treat delegated findings as CANDIDATE, LIKELY, or REFUTED; only the parent can mark a high-severity finding CONFIRMED after reopening the source.
  4. Report confirmed findings by severity and include useful refutations so safe paths are visible.
  5. If fixes were explicitly requested, assign disjoint paths, keep shared index/manifest files under one owner, then rerun the real project checks.

Completion verdict

Return NOT_READY, READY_FOR_REVIEW, or READY_TO_SHARE, followed by executed checks, assumptions, and remaining risk. No evidence means NOT_READY.

Next

Fix confirmed findings and rerun this audit. Capture a reusable lesson only after it has repeated in more than one real task.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.