agentleFS
ulises-jeremiasulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/skills/delivery/project-assessment-evidence/SKILL.md

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill before scoring a project assessment.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask the user for the systems of record and evidence locations.

    line 17
  3. Very specific:

    Do not score indicators. Return the evidence map to project-assessment, technical-unit-assessment, or management-unit-assessment.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask only the questions relevant to the assessment scope, but cover each required source class before scoring.

    line 25
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer direct artifacts over recollection.

    line 62
  6. Distinctive:

    Treat interview notes as valid evidence only when clearly labeled as interview evidence.

    line 63
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not use stale evidence without marking freshness risk.

    line 64
  8. Distinctive:

    If an indicator has conflicting evidence, record both sources and request validation.

    line 65
  9. Distinctive:

    If no evidence is available, record Missing evidence and avoid pretending certainty.

    line 66

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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

  1. Ask the user for the systems of record and evidence locations.
  2. Collect source links, paths, owners, dates, and freshness for each evidence item.
  3. Mark evidence quality: Direct, Indirect, Interview-only, Stale, Missing, or Not applicable.
  4. Record confidence for each evidence item: High, Medium, Low, or Not assessed.
  5. Do not score indicators. Return the evidence map to project-assessment, technical-unit-assessment, or management-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 template
  • references/example-evidence-map.md — example evidence map for a multi-team engineering assessment
  • project-assessment - assessment router
  • technical-unit-assessment - technical scoring
  • management-unit-assessment - management scoring
  • output-handshake - destination and review for final artifacts

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.