artifact-eval
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
The output gate for this repo. Runs on any deliverable before it is handed over, and also when the user says "review this deliverable", "is this ready", "check this before I send it", "quality check". Verifies the artifact is complete, honest about its assumptions, and free of the specific failures each artifact type is prone to. Returns a receipt. Gates deliverables this repo produced. To score your own AI system output against a rubric, with a separate judge and a logged cycle, use `eval-loop`.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- guerrilla2799/event-and-scale-ostheir own version, first seen Aug 22, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- guerrilla2799/event-and-scale-os★ 2same 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-guardrailsSkill
- agent-observabilitySkill
- agent-rolloutSkill
- agent-scopingSkill
- ai-governanceSkill
- attribution-architectureSkill
- context-portfolioSkill
- credit-and-cost-controlSkill
- data-hygieneSkill
- data-model-and-syncSkill
- enrichment-waterfallSkill
- eval-calibrationSkill
- eval-loopSkill
- eval-spec-authoringSkill
- gtm-systems-auditSkill
- icp-scoring-engineSkill
- lifecycle-and-routingSkill
- martech-stack-auditSkill
- ops-and-scale-osSkill
- reporting-architectureSkill
- signal-pipelineSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- tam-and-sourcingSkill
- warehouse-and-pipesSkill
- writing-qualitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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
- Distinctive: line 12
Before handing over any audit, model, spec, or plan produced by this repo
- Distinctive: line 13
Before any number reaches a slide
- Distinctive: line 14
When somebody asks whether a deliverable is ready
- Distinctive: line 63
Every borrowed rate, estimate, and benchmark is labeled as such, inline, where it is used rather than in a footnote.
- Distinctive: line 84
A gate trip blocks handover: No score absorbs a gate
- Distinctive: line 86
Borrowed benchmarks are labeled at the point of use,: not in a footnote
- Distinctive: line 88
The unwelcome part must be present: No do-not-do list means it was softened
≈ “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.
Files
Artifact Eval
The last thing that runs. Checks the deliverable against the failures its type is prone to, and refuses to hand over work that is quietly incomplete.
When to use
- Before handing over any audit, model, spec, or plan produced by this repo
- Before any number reaches a slide
- When somebody asks whether a deliverable is ready
Inputs
- Reads: the artifact, plus its source skill's rules section
- Needs from user: who the audience is, and whether any number in it is going to a board
Workflow
1. Run the universal gates
Any trip is a fail, regardless of how good the rest is.
GATE 1 An unsourced number. Every figure has a provenance or is marked [unverified]
GATE 2 A borrowed benchmark presented as this company's own data
GATE 3 A recommendation with no stated cost, owner, or date
GATE 4 A customer-specific metric or logo with no clearance marker
GATE 5 A conclusion the stated evidence does not support
GATE 6 Prose that has not passed writing-qualityGate 2 is the one that slips most. A benchmark table copied into a client deliverable becomes their number by the second reading, and nobody can find where it came from by the third.
2. Run the type-specific check
| Artifact | The failure it is prone to |
| Systems audit | Eight problems and no single constraint. Interviews with no diagnostics run |
| Object model | No named decision maker on the four definitions |
| Scoring model | Thresholds set before the distribution was seen. No discrimination test |
| Waterfall spec | Paid columns not structurally downstream of the free gate |
| Signal taxonomy | A signal with no decay window, or a play that says "notify" |
| Agent brief | Blank kill criterion. No named accountable user |
| Guardrails | Every guardrail is advisory. Nothing placed where persuasion cannot reach |
| Eval spec | Anchors missing. No frozen calibration set |
| Stack audit | Savings claimed with no capability lost named |
| Attribution model | Sourced and influenced summed. Window chosen after results |
| Lifecycle | Stages defined as entries. No max time in stage |
| Metrics dictionary | Missing object counted, date field, filters, or exclusions |
| Cost forecast | No actual-against-forecast comparison after the run |
3. Check completeness against the source skill
Open the source skill's Output section. Every file it says it writes must exist, and every item it says it prints must be present.
A deliverable missing a section its own skill promised is the most common quiet failure, and it is trivially checkable.
4. Check the assumptions are surfaced
Every borrowed rate, estimate, and benchmark is labeled as such, inline, where it is used rather than in a footnote. A reader must be able to tell at the point of reading which numbers are theirs and which are borrowed.
5. Check that the unwelcome part is present
Most skills in this repo require something the audience will not enjoy: a do-not-do list, a named capability loss, a refusal, a kill criterion, a stated constraint. If the deliverable has none, it was probably softened during writing.
An audit with no bad news is not an audit.
6. Return the receipt
artifact-eval: <type>, gates <pass | GATE n tripped>,
completeness <n/n sections>, assumptions labeled <yes | no>
writing-quality: <receipt from that skill>Output
- Returns the artifact, or a list of what must be fixed before it can be handed over
- Prints the receipt
Rules & quality bar
- A gate trip blocks handover. No score absorbs a gate
- Every number is sourced or marked [unverified]
- Borrowed benchmarks are labeled at the point of use, not in a footnote
- Completeness is checked against the source skill's own Output section
- The unwelcome part must be present. No do-not-do list means it was softened
- Both receipts appear, or the gates did not run
- Never pass work with a promised section missing. Name it and send it back
Related skills
- Runs:
writing-qualityas its first gate - Applies to: every deliverable in this repo
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.