Menu

Individual skill

evidence-grading

0upvotes

Grade the evidence behind a claim before betting on it — the hierarchy for business evidence (experiments > usage data > surveys > interviews > anecdotes > opinion), the fit-for-decision test, and the mixed-evidence verdicts that real questions produce. Use when asked how strong is our evidence for this, grade what we know before the decision, is this enough to bet on, or we have three anecdotes and a survey — now what. Produces the evidence inventory with grades, the sufficiency verdict against the decision's stakes, and the cheapest-upgrade path.

skills/evidence-grading/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit e0009a385c480fb0b5687e7412df67c7c64f7cee

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 12, 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)
1,542
Repository last updated
Nov 11, 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

# Evidence Grading Skill

"We have evidence" covers everything from a randomized experiment to the CEO's seatmate on a flight — and decisions made on ungraded evidence inherit the confusion. The grading discipline: inventory what actually supports the claim, place each item on the business-evidence hierarchy (what it *is*, not how confident it feels), test the graded weight against the decision's stakes (a reversible pilot needs less than a one-way rebrand — [decision-journal](../decision-journal/SKILL.md) logic), and when evidence falls short, name the *cheapest upgrade* — because the answer to weak evidence is usually a better test, not a braver bet.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The evidence inventory** — everything supporting (and contradicting) the claim, each item graded on the hierarchy
- **The weight assessment** — what the graded pile actually supports, including the mixed-signals honest read
- **The sufficiency verdict** — enough for this decision's stakes / not yet — with the stakes analysis shown
- **The upgrade path** — the cheapest next evidence that would move the verdict ("a 2-week holdout test settles this for $0")

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
Back to top