project-assessment-evidence
Skill19 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
WHAT - Interactive evidence intake for project assessments. Ask the user where each evidence
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Use this skill before scoring a project assessment.
- Distinctive: line 17
Ask the user for the systems of record and evidence locations.
- Very specific: line 21
Do not score indicators. Return the evidence map to project-assessment, technical-unit-assessment, or management-unit-assessment.
- Distinctive: line 25
Ask only the questions relevant to the assessment scope, but cover each required source class before scoring.
- Distinctive: line 62
Prefer direct artifacts over recollection.
- Distinctive: line 63
Treat interview notes as valid evidence only when clearly labeled as interview evidence.
- Distinctive: line 64
Do not use stale evidence without marking freshness risk.
- Distinctive: line 65
If an indicator has conflicting evidence, record both sources and request validation.
- Distinctive: line 66
If no evidence is available, record Missing evidence and avoid pretending certainty.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Project Assessment Evidence (WHAT)
Use this skill before scoring a project assessment. It turns scattered project knowledge into a structured evidence map.
This skill is intentionally interactive. Evidence can be outside ClickUp and outside the repository. Ask for source locations instead of assuming where they live.
Default behavior
- Ask the user for the systems of record and evidence locations.
- Collect source links, paths, owners, dates, and freshness for each evidence item.
- Mark evidence quality: Direct, Indirect, Interview-only, Stale, Missing, or Not applicable.
- Record confidence for each evidence item: High, Medium, Low, or Not assessed.
- Do not score indicators. Return the evidence map to
project-assessment,technical-unit-assessment, ormanagement-unit-assessment.
Evidence intake questions
Ask only the questions relevant to the assessment scope, but cover each required source class before scoring.
Scope and systems
- What project, product, platform, squad, or delivery scope is being assessed?
- What period should evidence cover?
- What are the official systems of record?
- Which sources should be considered authoritative when sources conflict?
Delivery and management evidence
- Where is the project board or backlog?
- Where are epics, stories, tasks, bugs, incidents, and subtasks tracked?
- Where are sprint plans, delivery reports, retrospectives, risks, and OIRs?
- Where are PRDs, TRDs, ADRs, decisions, agreements, and meeting minutes stored?
- Where can stakeholder feedback, client satisfaction signals, and team health signals be found?
- Who should validate subjective management indicators?
Technical evidence
- Where are the repositories and deployment manifests?
- Where are architecture diagrams, API docs, runbooks, and operations docs?
- Where are CI/CD pipelines, deployment history, and release notes?
- Where are test reports, coverage data, quality gates, and static analysis outputs?
- Where are observability dashboards, alerts, logs, incident records, and postmortems?
- Where are security, compliance, access control, secrets management, and dependency signals?
- For data systems, where are lineage, data quality checks, orchestration, schemas, business rules, and consumption docs?
- For UI/UX, where are design files, UX research, accessibility reports, performance reports, screenshots, recordings, or product analytics?
Interviews and validation
- Who should be interviewed or asked for context?
- Which questions must be answered by humans because no artifact exists?
- Which scores require cross-review or consensus?
Evidence quality rules
- Prefer direct artifacts over recollection.
- Treat interview notes as valid evidence only when clearly labeled as interview evidence.
- Do not use stale evidence without marking freshness risk.
- If an indicator has conflicting evidence, record both sources and request validation.
- If no evidence is available, record Missing evidence and avoid pretending certainty.
Output
Return an evidence map with:
- Source type
- Source link or location
- Owner or contact
- Freshness
- Related indicators
- Evidence strength
- Confidence
- Notes and limitations
References
references/default-template.md- evidence map templatereferences/example-evidence-map.md— example evidence map for a multi-team engineering assessmentproject-assessment- assessment routertechnical-unit-assessment- technical scoringmanagement-unit-assessment- management scoringoutput-handshake- destination and review for final artifacts
In this repository106 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- reviewSkill
- mcp-auditSkill
- owasp-agentic-reviewSkill
- supply-chain-auditSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
- architecture-diagramSkill
- c4-modelSkill
- aws-well-architected-reviewSkill
- cloud-design-patternsSkill
- assistantSkill
- dev-companionSkill
- onboardingSkill
- output-handshakeSkill
- pr-fallbackSkill
- projectSkill
- workspace-knowledge-syncSkill
- workspaceSkill
- dbt-validationSkill
- snowflake-validationSkill
- adrSkill
- agreementSkill
- bugSkill
- decision-logSkill
- development-workflowSkill
- epicSkill
- incidentSkill
- management-unit-assessmentSkill
- meeting-minutesSkill
- planningSkill
- prdSkill
- project-assessmentSkill
- spikeSkill
- taskSkill
- technical-unit-assessmentSkill
- trdSkill
- user-storySkill
- workflow-client-bootstrapSkill
- workflow-generic-projectSkill
- work-itemSkill
- bragSkill
- brag-slimSkill
- design-assessmentSkill
- design-improvementSkill
- figma-code-connect-componentsSkill
- figma-create-design-system-rulesSkill
- figma-create-new-fileSkill
- figma-implement-designSkill
- figmaSkill
- frontend-design-reviewSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- scroll-worldSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- fix-merge-conflictsSkill
- gh-address-commentsSkill
- gh-contribution-plannerSkill
- gh-fix-ciSkill
- github-cli-workflowSkill
- gitlab-cli-workflowSkill
- worktreeSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

