Menu

Individual skill

s4h-investigation-evidence-audit

0upvotes

Evaluates the quality, strength, and completeness of evidence for a claim. Covers evidence type hierarchy, sample quality, methodological soundness, conflicts of interest, and what's notably absent. Use when you want to know how good the evidence is — 'is this evidence strong', 'evaluate the research', 'how solid is this', 'is this just one study', 'what kind of evidence supports this', 'what's missing from the evidence'.

skills/s4h-investigation-evidence-audit/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit a30df8b67698ccb03ef5e35d68c2eddc5321ad3f

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Instructions only
Last checked
Nov 11, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
241
Repository last updated
Jul 15, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Investigation: Evidence Audit

Evidence is not a binary: there or not there. A study can exist and be worthless. Multiple sources can exist and all be downstream of the same flawed original. The question is never just "is there evidence?" but "what kind, how strong, and what's missing?" A structured evidence audit answers all three. It places the available evidence in a hierarchy, evaluates it against the claim it's supposed to support, flags conflicts of interest, and explicitly names what should exist but doesn't.

---

## Your Process

**Step 1: State the Claim and Evidence Inventory**
Write out the claim you're evaluating. List all evidence currently offered in support — each study, data point, expert opinion, case, or example. Do not filter yet: capture the full inventory.

**Framing check:** Confirm the specific claim and evidence set before continuing. State what you've identified — the precise claim being evaluated and the body of evidence offered in its support — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
- **Question:** "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the claim and its evidence]. Is that right?"
- **Header:** "Framing"
Back to top