agentleFS
Sign inStart free
myshra777-aimyshra777-ai/garuda/skills/evidence-verification/SKILL.md

evidence-verification

Skill4 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when someone asks you to prove that an architectural claim or requirement actually holds, verify a governance receipt, or export an audit trail. Garuda checks natural-language or ADR statements against the indexed code and returns each claim as supported, unverified or contradicted, with evidence. It validates deterministic receipt hashes and graph fingerprints so a result can be reproduced, verifies RFC 6962 SHA-256 Merkle inclusion proofs, and exports the full decision, policy evaluation and proof bundle for auditors or compliance review. Use it whenever a conclusion must be checkable by someone else rather than taken on trust. Read-only by default.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. dfinson/promptlings★ 1same 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Epistemic States: Always distinguish SUPPORTED (backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required), UNVERIFIED (statically …

    line 36

≈ “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

06 — Garuda Evidence & Merkle Ledger Verification

Substantiates architectural claims (SUPPORTED, UNVERIFIED, CONTRADICTED) and verifies RFC 6962 SHA-256 Merkle inclusion proofs and governance receipts.

1. Purpose & Triggers

Invoke this skill when the user or coding workflow asks:

  • "Prove whether this architectural requirement is actually satisfied"
  • "Verify the RFC 6962 Merkle receipt and epistemic state for this workspace"
  • "Export the governance audit trail"

2. Required Context

  • workspace: Target Garuda workspace name (default: "default").
  • repo_dir: Repository root path (default: ".").
  • diff / target: Git revision range (e.g. "HEAD") or symbol/package name.

3. Ordered MCP Workflow

  1. garuda.query_claims — Retrieve claims filtered by status (SUPPORTED, UNVERIFIED, CONTRADICTED).
  2. garuda.verify_claim — Verify whether a natural-language or ADR statement holds in the indexed AST.
  3. garuda.verify_receipt — Validate the deterministic receipt_hash and graph_fingerprint.
  4. garuda.audit_export — Export the complete governance decision, policy evaluation, and RFC 6962 Merkle proof bundle.

CLI Fallback (when MCP stdio is not attached):

garuda doctor && garuda check . --json

4. Decision & Epistemic Rules

  • Epistemic States: Always distinguish SUPPORTED (backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required), UNVERIFIED (statically extracted, awaiting runtime trace), and CONTRADICTED (violates ADR, policy, or static boundary).
  • Governance Verdicts: ALLOW (proceed), WARN (proceed with note), REVIEW (requires human architectural review), BLOCK (halt and remediate net-new violation), INCONCLUSIVE (0 entities matched policy scope; never treat as vacuous ALLOW).

5. Output Contract

Format every report using this six-part structure: Finding -> Evidence (file:line & match_method) -> Affected Components (callers & tier) -> Policy / ADR -> Confidence / Status -> Recommended Action

6. Safety & Limitations

  • Read-Only by Default: Public installations run with GARUDA_MCP_READ_ONLY=true. Never invoke mutating tools (garuda.approve_base_rulebook, garuda.decide_logic_variant, garuda.reconcile_data_audit) without explicit human authorization (GARUDA_MCP_APPROVER).
  • Scope Qualification: RFC 6962 Merkle proofs (H_leaf = SHA256(0x00 || data)) establish tamper-evident integrity and inclusion of recorded governance evaluations; they do not replace unit, integration, or dynamic security testing.

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.

Check your setup, free