evidence-review
Skill2 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing a substantial change against its request, or assessing code-review feedback before applying it in the current project. Skip trivial copy edits and routine status questions.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- itsmostafa/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- grcmana/grc-ostheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- grcmana/grcskillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- 01jiyuge/signaldesktheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Zack-Grogan/agentos-foundationtheir own version, first seen Sep 8, 2026
- xiejianjun000/FlowWikitheir own version, first seen Jul 27, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- scholay/skills★ 141same name
- itsmostafa/agent-skills★ 4same name
- MKTerXiaoV/pharma-review-skills★ 4same name
- xiejianjun000/FlowWiki★ 4same name
- grcmana/grc-os★ 2same name
- grcmana/grcskills★ 2same name
- 01jiyuge/signaldesk★ 0same name
- Zack-Grogan/agentos-foundation★ 0same 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 repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docsSkill
- clawdlineSkill
- evidence-debuggingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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 17
When receiving feedback, first restate the concrete proposed change and verify its premise against the current code, callers, supported …
- Distinctive: line 21
Keep invocation evidence and findings in the normal Session history.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Evidence-led review
Review the actual revision and surrounding behavior. Existing project checks, acceptance rules and role skills remain authoritative. Keep review proportional to the change; this skill does not require another agent, an extra approval, or a full suite for every edit.
For a proposed change, make two separate judgments:
- Requested behavior: map each material requirement to the implementation and its evidence. Include negative and failure paths relevant to this change. Unavailable requirements remain unverified.
- Implementation quality: examine correctness, data ownership, concurrency, permissions, compatibility and maintainability where the diff touches them. A passing test does not establish all of these, and a preference is not a defect.
Report confirmed findings by severity with location, impact and supporting evidence. Distinguish pre-existing issues, optional improvements and unresolved questions. For a large change, inspect the integrated flow as well as individual tasks. Use an independent reviewer only when the task and project rules authorize it and the risk justifies it.
When receiving feedback, first restate the concrete proposed change and verify its premise against the current code, callers, supported platforms and documented decisions. Implement technically supported corrections; explain unsupported suggestions with evidence. Clarify only the part whose ambiguity blocks progress and continue independent authorized work.
Match acceptance evidence to its subject: a child success message needs its artifact and landing checked; deployment needs the intended version and served asset checked; a bug needs its original symptom retested. Report partial verification as partial. Do not modify or delete someone else's work while checking a claim.
Keep invocation evidence and findings in the normal Session history. If the current project has an approved workflow pilot, follow its own checkpoint and evidence limits. Do not launch extra model calls as part of ordinary review.
Adapted from obra/superpowers receiving-code-review and the spec/quality review distinction in subagent-driven-development at commit 2ce8aa15d05bd57213e6f746f953aafb7ded7a8b. Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent, MIT. No orchestration, model-selection or branch-finishing instructions were imported.
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.