zephyr-safety-evidence
Skill5 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when planning or reviewing Zephyr safety evidence, safety requirements traceability, certification gaps, or claims involving ASIL, ISO 26262, IEC 61508, SIL, MC/DC, HARA, FMEA/FMEDA, tool qualification, or safety cases.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- de-ai-writingSkill
- docs-translate-zhSkill
- interactive-gdb-debuggingSkill
- openeuler-researchSkill
- zephyr-debugSkill
- zephyr-exploreSkill
- zephyr-patch-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- Very specific: line 28
Put every generated intermediate debugging document, debug script, and scaffolding or harness script, including Bash and Python scripts, …
- Distinctive: line 46
Read the safety guardrails in full before producing safety-facing output.
- Distinctive: line 50
Create only the artifacts the task needs: traceability, evidence, scope, or assumptions.
- Distinctive: line 58
Leave certification, risk acceptance, and scope-closure decisions to the responsible humans and assessors.
- Distinctive: line 61
Never treat draft or partial evidence as proof of product ASIL compliance, IEC 61508 SIL/SC compliance, or completed certification.
≈ “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
Zephyr Safety Evidence
Audit workflow
For every non-trivial task that writes to the workspace, choose a stable task slug and keep agent-only records under:
.zephyr-skills/<agent-task>/
├── audit.md # Baseline, decisions, evidence, verification, and gaps
├── commands.md # Redacted commands, working directories, and results
├── scripts/ # Intermediate debug documents, scripts, and harnesses
├── output/ # Non-Zephyr dependencies and temporary binaries
└── logs/ # Decisive build, test, runtime, or diagnostic logsPut every generated intermediate debugging document, debug script, and
scaffolding or harness script, including Bash and Python scripts, under
scripts/, never in a build directory. Put non-Zephyr third-party source or
libraries acquired solely for the agent's task, and temporary binaries produced
by agent-only probes or tools, under output/. Do not copy normal Zephyr build
artifacts there. Keep other agent plans and temporary evidence in the same task
directory. In a Git worktree, add
/.zephyr-skills/ to the repository-local exclude file returned by
git rev-parse --git-path info/exclude before writing audit artifacts. Preserve
existing entries, avoid duplicates, and verify before handoff that
git status --short contains no .zephyr-skills/ paths. Keep Zephyr-native
build trees, binaries, and test outputs separate: honor a user-specified path,
otherwise use defaults such as configured build.dir-fmt, build/, or
twister-out/. Record the effective paths, do not stage .zephyr-skills/
unless requested, and report the task directory and unresolved gaps at handoff.
Evidence workflow
- Read the safety guardrails in full before producing safety-facing output.
- Bound the claim to a safety scope layer, owner, source baseline, and evidence boundary.
- Create only the artifacts the task needs: traceability, evidence, scope, or assumptions.
- For implementation claims, link requirements to code or configuration and verification evidence. For product, process, or assessment claims, link the applicable requirement, process, or assessment evidence and mark code or test fields as not applicable or as gaps.
- Separate facts, assumptions, human judgments, and gaps, and state what the evidence does not prove.
- Leave certification, risk acceptance, and scope-closure decisions to the responsible humans and assessors.
Never treat draft or partial evidence as proof of product ASIL compliance, IEC 61508 SIL/SC compliance, or completed certification.
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.

