docs-claims-evidence-review
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing README or docs truthfulness, recruiter-facing claims, security claims, production-readiness claims, evidence maps, or unsupported project claims.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/llms.txtllms.txt
- ai-app-security-reviewSkill
- codeaudit-orchestratorSkill
- codeauditSkill
- enterprise-code-qualitySkill
- github-issue-pr-workflowSkill
- nextjs-security-reviewSkill
- official-docs-groundingSkill
- python-backend-qualitySkill
- python-mcp-server-qualitySkill
- refactor-with-testsSkill
- skill-supply-chain-auditorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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 20
Never allow unsupported claims such as secure, production-ready, enterprise-grade, fully tested, scalable, robust, or battle-tested.
≈ “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
Docs Claims Evidence Review
Workflow
- Extract strong claims from README and docs.
- Classify claim strength: weak, moderate, or strong.
- Map each claim to file, test, or documentation evidence.
- Mark missing evidence explicitly.
- Recommend keep, weaken, remove, or add evidence.
Strong Claims
Never allow unsupported claims such as secure, production-ready, enterprise-grade, fully tested, scalable, robust, or battle-tested. Docs should stay positive but truthful.
Evidence Examples
- Security: middleware, auth checks, rate limits, headers, validation, threat model, security tests.
- Production-ready: deployment docs, env docs, smoke tests, error handling, observability.
- Fully tested: test framework, meaningful test files, coverage or test command evidence.
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.