ground
Skill6 starsChanged 14 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Anchor claims to evidence from authoritative sources. Use when validating assertions, establishing provenance, verifying facts, or ensuring claims are supported by evidence.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tamesystems/intent-engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- halakou/groundtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- ilanbm/kpoppertheir own version, first seen Sep 23, 2026
- envisioning/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 22, 2026
- reutavidan/zetesis-plugintheir own version, first seen Aug 6, 2026
- ahelme/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 5, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- ilanbm/kpopper★ 12same name
- envisioning/skills★ 2same name
- ahelme/skills★ 1same name
- yiyaw-lab/agent-armor★ 1same name
- halakou/ground★ 0same name
- reutavidan/zetesis-plugin★ 0same name
- tamesystems/intent-engineering-skills★ 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 repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- attributeSkill
- auditSkill
- gap-analysis-workflowSkill
- checkpointSkill
- classifySkill
- compareSkill
- constrainSkill
- critiqueSkill
- debug-workflowSkill
- decomposeSkill
- delegateSkill
- detectSkill
- digital-twin-bootstrapSkill
- digital-twin-sync-workflowSkill
- discover-capabilitiesSkill
- discoverSkill
- executeSkill
- explainSkill
- generateSkill
- inquireSkill
- integrateSkill
- invokeSkill
- measureSkill
- mutateSkill
- observeSkill
- persistSkill
- perspective-validationSkill
- planSkill
- predictSkill
- recallSkill
- receiveSkill
- retrieveSkill
- rollbackSkill
- searchSkill
- sendSkill
- simulateSkill
- stateSkill
- synchronizeSkill
- transformSkill
- transitionSkill
- verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
10
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 15
Verify that claims are supported by evidence from reliable sources.
- Distinctive: line 44
Use provided sources if available
- Distinctive: line 48
Search for evidence: Look for supporting or contradicting data
- Distinctive: line 49
Read relevant files and documentation
- Distinctive: line 55
Check for recency and relevance
- Distinctive: line 250
Verification tools: Read (to verify evidence excerpts)
- Distinctive: line 260
Never claim something is grounded without evidence
- Distinctive: line 263
Do not fabricate evidence
- Distinctive: line 278
Never skip grounding for important assertions
- Distinctive: line 279
Avoid accepting claims without evidence in planning
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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
Intent
Verify that claims are supported by evidence from reliable sources. This is the foundation of the Grounded Agency principle - no assertion should be made without evidence anchors.
Success criteria:
- Claim evaluated against available evidence
- Evidence sources identified and referenced
- Grounding strength assessed (strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded)
- Evidence gaps explicitly documented
Compatible schemas:
schemas/output_schema.yaml
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description |
claim | Yes | string | The claim or assertion to ground |
sources | No | array | Evidence sources to check (files, URLs, commands) |
required_strength | No | string | Minimum grounding level: weak, moderate, strong |
Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).
Procedure
- Parse the claim: Understand what is being asserted
- Identify the core assertion
- Note any implicit sub-claims
- Determine what evidence would support it
- Identify evidence sources: Determine where to look
- Use provided sources if available
- Identify additional relevant sources
- Prioritize authoritative sources
- Search for evidence: Look for supporting or contradicting data
- Read relevant files and documentation
- Execute commands to gather data
- Note both supporting and contradicting evidence
- Evaluate evidence quality: Assess reliability of found evidence
- Consider source authority
- Check for recency and relevance
- Note any bias or limitations
- Assess grounding strength: Determine how well claim is supported
- Strong: multiple authoritative sources agree
- Moderate: one authoritative source or multiple secondary
- Weak: indirect or partial evidence
- Ungrounded: no supporting evidence found
- Document gaps: Note missing evidence
- What evidence would strengthen grounding?
- What sources could not be checked?
- What assumptions remain unverified?
Output Contract
Return a structured object:
grounded: boolean # Whether claim meets required_strength
claim: string # The claim being evaluated
strength: string # strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded
evidence:
- source: string # Evidence source
type: string # file, url, command, observation
content: string # Relevant excerpt
supports: boolean # Supports or contradicts claim
authority: string # high, medium, low
contradictions:
- source: string
content: string
severity: string # How seriously it undermines claim
gaps:
- description: string # What evidence is missing
would_provide: string # What it would establish
confidence: 0..1
evidence_anchors: ["file:line", "url", "command:output"]
assumptions: []Field Definitions
| Field | Type | Description |
grounded | boolean | Whether claim meets required evidence threshold |
strength | string | Grounding level: strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded |
evidence | array | Supporting evidence with sources and excerpts |
contradictions | array | Evidence that contradicts the claim |
gaps | array | Missing evidence that would strengthen grounding |
confidence | number | 0.0-1.0 confidence in the grounding judgement |
evidence_anchors | array | References to every source consulted |
assumptions | array | Explicit assumptions |
Examples
Example 1: Ground a Technical Claim
Input:
claim: "The payment processor uses Stripe API v2023-10-16"
sources:
- "Gemfile"
- "config/initializers/stripe.rb"
required_strength: "strong"Output:
grounded: true
claim: "The payment processor uses Stripe API v2023-10-16"
strength: "strong"
evidence:
- source: "Gemfile"
type: "file"
content: "gem 'stripe', '~> 10.0'"
supports: true
authority: "high"
- source: "config/initializers/stripe.rb"
type: "file"
content: "Stripe.api_version = '2023-10-16'"
supports: true
authority: "high"
- source: "Gemfile.lock"
type: "file"
content: "stripe (10.1.0)"
supports: true
authority: "high"
contradictions: []
gaps:
- description: "Runtime verification of API version"
would_provide: "Confirmation that configured version is actually used"
confidence: 0.95
evidence_anchors:
- "Gemfile:42"
- "config/initializers/stripe.rb:3"
- "Gemfile.lock:156"
assumptions:
- "Configuration is loaded at runtime"
- "No environment-specific overrides"Example 2: Partial Grounding
Input:
claim: "User authentication requires 2FA for all accounts"
sources:
- "app/models/user.rb"
- "config/devise.yml"
required_strength: "strong"Output:
grounded: false
claim: "User authentication requires 2FA for all accounts"
strength: "weak"
evidence:
- source: "app/models/user.rb"
type: "file"
content: "has_one :two_factor_auth"
supports: true
authority: "medium"
- source: "config/devise.yml"
type: "file"
content: "two_factor_authentication: enabled: true"
supports: true
authority: "high"
contradictions:
- source: "app/controllers/sessions_controller.rb"
content: "skip_2fa_for_api_tokens: true"
severity: "high"
- source: "app/models/user.rb"
content: "scope :without_2fa, -> { where(two_factor_enabled: false) }"
severity: "medium"
gaps:
- description: "Policy enforcement mechanism"
would_provide: "Evidence that 2FA is mandatory, not optional"
- description: "Admin user configuration"
would_provide: "Whether admin accounts have different requirements"
confidence: 0.40
evidence_anchors:
- "app/models/user.rb:15"
- "config/devise.yml:8"
- "app/controllers/sessions_controller.rb:23"
assumptions:
- "2FA support exists but enforcement unclear"Example 3: Ungrounded Claim
Input:
claim: "The system processes 10,000 requests per second"
sources:
- "README.md"
- "docs/architecture.md"
required_strength: "moderate"Output:
grounded: false
claim: "The system processes 10,000 requests per second"
strength: "ungrounded"
evidence:
- source: "README.md"
type: "file"
content: "High-performance API server"
supports: false
authority: "low"
contradictions: []
gaps:
- description: "Load test results"
would_provide: "Measured throughput under load"
- description: "Production metrics"
would_provide: "Actual request rates and latencies"
- description: "Benchmark documentation"
would_provide: "Performance claims with methodology"
confidence: 0.1
evidence_anchors:
- "README.md:5"
- "docs/architecture.md (no relevant content)"
assumptions:
- "No performance data available in provided sources"Verification
- Claim is clearly stated
- At least one evidence source was checked
- Strength assessment is consistent with evidence
- Contradictions are noted if found
- Evidence anchors reference specific locations
Verification tools: Read (to verify evidence excerpts)
Safety Constraints
mutation: falserequires_checkpoint: falserequires_approval: falserisk: low
Capability-specific rules:
- Never claim something is grounded without evidence
- Note contradicting evidence even if claim seems grounded
- Flag when sources may be outdated
- Do not fabricate evidence
Composition Patterns
Commonly follows:
generate- Ground generated contentpredict- Ground prediction assumptionsexplain- Ground explanation premises
Commonly precedes:
verify- Grounding enables verificationaudit- Grounding supports audit trailsplan- Only proceed with grounded information
Anti-patterns:
- Never skip grounding for important assertions
- Avoid accepting claims without evidence in planning
Workflow references:
- See
reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#world_model_buildfor grounding in world models - Core principle of Grounded Agency - all skills should ground claims
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.

