evidence
Skill2 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub
Intake modeling problem files and curate research evidence with faithful source text, targeted verification, pins, and freezes.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jacksnxly/keryxtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pahlevikun/levistacktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- adiutama/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- hoophq/hooptheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- ltlongtma/solo-sdlctheir own version, first seen Oct 2, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- hoophq/hoop★ 848same name
- ltlongtma/solo-sdlc★ 2same name
- adiutama/skills★ 1same name
- jacksnxly/keryx★ 0same name
- pahlevikun/levistack★ 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- coordinatorSkill
- executionSkill
- explorationSkill
- publicationSkill
- reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are 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.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Keep originals read-only. Start with the cheapest faithful representation: page-marked PDF text or programmatic spreadsheet profile.
- Distinctive: line 12
Use targeted research when there is a stated evidence gap.
- Very specific: line 29
When a known error appears, follow only its claim/pin/freeze dependencies and request review there, while retaining prior files for …
“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
Evidence Work
Keep originals read-only. Start with the cheapest faithful representation: page-marked PDF
text or programmatic spreadsheet profile. Keep literal source content in document.md; put
summaries, relevance, and limits in notes or topic navigation.
Use targeted research when there is a stated evidence gap. Stop when the gap closes, the time limit is reached, or new results have low value. Use full research only for open or external-fact-heavy questions; expand methods, counterexamples, and citation tracing, then stop after two rounds without high-value additions. Do not present either mode as exhaustive.
For PDFs, record uncertain page/region questions and request only that region for visual review. For workbooks, inspect all sheets programmatically and use the conversion check; do not ask people to review rows or silently clean data. Formula text is not a calculated value, and a missing cache is an explicit limitation.
Register sources by DOI, canonical URL, or content hash. A title match alone is not enough. Mark abstract-only or metadata-only access honestly and do not use it to support claims beyond what it contains. Claims need a specific locator and scope.
Pin the actual versions a consumer adopts. Refresh is an explicit choice, not a side effect of new search results. Freeze only the subset used by the output, including applicable official rules; generate citations from that freeze. New unrelated material leaves old freezes valid. When a known error appears, follow only its claim/pin/freeze dependencies and request review there, while retaining prior files for reproducibility.
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.

