agentleFS
aws-solutionsaws-solutions/konductor/skills/doc-accuracy-analyzer/SKILL.md

doc-accuracy-analyzer

Skill11 starsChanged 49 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use before submitting a design doc for review, after major revisions to a design doc, or when a reviewer flags factual concerns. Extracts verifiable claims, investigates each against primary sources, classifies findings, and produces a structured accuracy report.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before submitting a design doc for review

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    After major revisions to a design doc

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    When a reviewer flags factual concerns

    line 16
  4. Distinctive:

    Search the source. Do not accept the document's assertion as evidence.

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    Never accept "it is well known that" as evidence

    line 95

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Doc Accuracy Analyzer

Systematically verify technical documents by extracting and investigating every verifiable claim.

When to Use

  • Before submitting a design doc for review
  • After major revisions to a design doc
  • When a reviewer flags factual concerns

6-Step Workflow

Step 1: Extract Verifiable Claims

Scan the document and extract all verifiable claims by category:

  • Data claims — metrics, counts, sizes, rates ("handles 10k RPS", "99.99% availability")
  • Code claims — "already implemented", "requires only configuration", "built on top of X"
  • Infrastructure claims — service features, regional availability, pricing, limits
  • Approach claims — "this is the standard pattern", "AWS recommends", "best practice"

Be aggressive. "Already built" and "requires only configuration" are the highest-risk claim types.

Step 2: Investigate Each Claim

For each claim, identify the primary source that would confirm or deny it:

  • AWS documentation for service features and limits
  • Source code for implementation claims
  • AWS pricing calculator for cost claims
  • AWS regional service table for availability claims

Search the source. Do not accept the document's assertion as evidence.

Step 3: Classify Findings

For each claim, assign a classification and severity:

ClassificationDefinitionSeverity
VerifiedConfirmed by primary source—
InaccurateContradicted by primary sourceHigh
OverstatedTrue but exaggeratedMedium
UnverifiableNo primary source foundMedium
Missing ContextTrue but incomplete without qualifierLow

Step 4: Assess Approach Feasibility

For each architectural approach or integration:

  • Trace the execution path end-to-end
  • Identify any step that assumes a capability not confirmed in Step 2
  • Flag any "it will work because it should work" reasoning

Step 5: Suggest Corrections

For each Inaccurate or Overstated finding, provide:

  • The original text
  • The corrected text
  • The primary source citation

Step 6: Produce Report

## Doc Accuracy Report

### Summary

- Total claims: N
- Verified: N | Inaccurate: N | Overstated: N | Unverifiable: N | Missing Context: N

### High Severity Findings

[claim | classification | evidence | correction]

### Medium Severity Findings

[claim | classification | evidence | correction]

### Low Severity Findings

[claim | classification | evidence]

Guidelines

  • Never accept "it is well known that" as evidence
  • Service limits change — always check current documentation
  • "AWS supports X" requires a docs.aws.amazon.com citation
  • Implementation claims require a file path or commit reference

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.