minimal-sufficient-evidence
Skill0 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when designing or reviewing tests, debugging plans, regression suites, process metrics, documentation templates, predictive models, or root-cause analyses to remove redundancy and keep only the smallest evidence set that still supports the decision
In this repository66 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- postgres-locking-joinsSkill
- ai-bug-patternsSkill
- compressed-ndjson-boundariesSkill
- http-resume-integritySkill
- linux-io-latency-triageSkill
- macos-disk-space-recoverySkill
- modularize-large-filesSkill
- patch-reproducer-validitySkill
- prompt-cache-boundariesSkill
- proton-drive-selective-backupSkill
- transactional-outbox-deliverySkill
- conventional-commitsSkill
- git-advanced-mergingSkill
- git-bisect-forensicsSkill
- git-data-recoverySkill
- git-hooksSkill
- git-rerereSkill
- git-reset-mechanicsSkill
- git-revisions-syntaxSkill
- git-rewriting-historySkill
- git-submodulesSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- github-ssh-keysSkill
- npm-publish-ci-pitfallsSkill
- sapling-stacked-pr-workflowSkill
- go-concurrency-patternsSkill
- go-data-idiomsSkill
- go-error-handlingSkill
- go-interfaces-embeddingSkill
- go-pprof-profilingSkill
- marketing-funnel-diagnosisSkill
- marketing-geo-experimentsSkill
- marketing-incrementalitySkill
- marketing-positioning-testsSkill
- python-descriptors-mroSkill
- python-logging-cookbookSkill
- python-scaling-regression-testsSkill
- python-unicode-gotchasSkill
- rust-compile-time-invariantsSkill
- rust-deterministic-concurrency-testsSkill
- rust-error-identity-boundariesSkill
- rust-regex-search-contractsSkill
- rust-runtime-bug-classesSkill
- rust-tokio-actor-deliverySkill
- rust-tokio-cancellation-safetySkill
- sales-discovery-qualificationSkill
- sales-mutual-action-plansSkill
- sales-pipeline-forecast-calibrationSkill
- sales-value-negotiationSkill
- ai-triage-evaluationSkill
- container-image-patchingSkill
- dependency-artifact-integritySkill
- dnssec-sentinel-diagnosticsSkill
- iam-policy-change-replaySkill
- rbvm-applicabilitySkill
- rbvm-asset-evidenceSkill
- rbvm-guarded-remediationSkill
- rbvm-priority-decisionsSkill
- rbvm-risk-exceptionsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈15
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 8
Use this skill when a workflow is growing by accumulation: more tests, more metrics, more bug hypotheses, more template fields, more model …
- Distinctive: line 21
Keep the item only when it adds independent signal, catches a distinct risk, or materially improves reproducibility.
- Distinctive: line 26
Do not add tests that assert the same behavior through cosmetic variations.
- Distinctive: line 27
Before writing a new regression test:
- Distinctive: line 31
Check nearby tests for the same hypothesis, not just the same code path.
- Distinctive: line 32
Prefer one table-driven test with meaningful cases over many copied tests.
- Distinctive: line 33
Keep duplicates only when they exercise different layers, encodings, concurrency shapes, trust boundaries, or platform behaviors.
- Distinctive: line 36
When pruning a suite, remove or merge tests that fail and pass together for the same reason.
- Distinctive: line 41
Use the scientific method.
- Distinctive: line 45
Run the smallest reliable reproduction.
- Distinctive: line 49
Use delta debugging when the input, patch, configuration, or environment is too large: repeatedly split it, test each half, and keep the …
- Distinctive: line 56
Use a small metric set that covers the process characteristics you actually need to manage.
- Distinctive: line 78
Remove fields that people routinely leave blank, invent, or cannot use in a later workflow.
- Distinctive: line 83
Prefer the fewest variables that provide stable predictive power.
- Distinctive: line 88
Use as few variables as possible, but not fewer: keep variables required for fairness, calibration, known causal structure, or important …
≈ “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
Minimal Sufficient Evidence
Use this skill when a workflow is growing by accumulation: more tests, more metrics, more bug hypotheses, more template fields, more model variables, or more root-cause factors. The goal is not minimalism for its own sake; it is the smallest set that still distinguishes the important cases and supports the next decision.
Working rule
For every proposed artifact, ask:
- What hypothesis, decision, or failure mode does this cover?
- Is that already covered by something else with the same signal?
- What breaks if we remove it?
Keep the item only when it adds independent signal, catches a distinct risk, or materially improves reproducibility.
Regression tests
Do not add tests that assert the same behavior through cosmetic variations. Before writing a new regression test:
- Name the exact bug or invariant being protected.
- Identify the smallest fixture that reproduces it.
- Check nearby tests for the same hypothesis, not just the same code path.
- Prefer one table-driven test with meaningful cases over many copied tests.
- Keep duplicates only when they exercise different layers, encodings, concurrency shapes, trust boundaries, or platform behaviors.
When pruning a suite, remove or merge tests that fail and pass together for the same reason. Preserve one canonical test with the clearest failure message.
Bug search
Use the scientific method. Treat each step as an experiment:
- State one hypothesis.
- Change one variable.
- Run the smallest reliable reproduction.
- Record the result.
- Narrow the search space.
Use delta debugging when the input, patch, configuration, or environment is too large: repeatedly split it, test each half, and keep the smallest subset that still fails. Stop when further reduction would remove the failure or make the case unrealistic.
Metrics
Use a small metric set that covers the process characteristics you actually need to manage. Each metric must have an owner, a decision it informs, and a known failure mode. Drop vanity metrics and highly correlated metrics unless they catch different risks.
Good metric sets usually include one measure of volume, one of quality, one of speed or latency, and one of risk when those dimensions matter. Do not measure because measurement is possible.
Documentation templates
Template fields must earn their place. For bug reports, keep fields that help someone reproduce and diagnose the failure:
- observed behavior
- expected behavior
- exact reproduction steps
- minimal input or fixture
- environment/version
- relevant logs, screenshots, or traces
- first known bad and last known good, when available
Remove fields that people routinely leave blank, invent, or cannot use in a later workflow.
Predictive models
Prefer the fewest variables that provide stable predictive power. Start with a simple baseline and add variables only when they improve out-of-sample behavior or explain a known mechanism. Watch for proxies, leakage, multicollinearity, and variables that make the model harder to maintain without improving decisions.
Use as few variables as possible, but not fewer: keep variables required for fairness, calibration, known causal structure, or important segment performance.
Root cause
End with the crucial factors, not the whole investigation history. Usually there is one cause, or a small interacting set. Separate:
- root cause: the condition that made the failure possible
- trigger: the event that exposed it
- contributing factors: conditions that made it worse
- non-causes: plausible hypotheses ruled out by evidence
The final analysis should explain why the selected cause is sufficient and why discarded explanations are not needed.
Pitfalls
- Deleting tests only because they look similar; compare the hypothesis they protect.
- Keeping tests only because they touch different lines; line coverage is not independent evidence.
- Adding metrics without naming the decision they change.
- Letting templates become questionnaires instead of workflow tools.
- Treating correlation-heavy model features as independent signal.
- Publishing root-cause writeups that list every observation instead of the decisive factors.
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.

