build-evidence-map
Build an auditable evidence map for a contested technical choice, research synthesis, proposal review, or consequential decision. Use when Copilot must preserve supporting, contradicting, qualifying, and missing evidence with exact source regions instead of collapsing disagreement into prose.
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 5
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 3a47bbd1d76ddb57… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
SKILL.md
Build Evidence Map
Turn one contested question into a portable decision artifact that shows what supports the current position, what pushes against it, and what remains unknown. Do not use a graph to decorate an answer that has not been sourced.
For a simple factual claim or a general fact-checking request, use a verification
workflow such as doublecheck instead. Use this skill when the relationships
between evidence, intermediate claims, trade-offs, and missing facts matter.
Workflow
-
Frame one decision. Write one falsifiable question and one provisional position. Narrow the question until a reader can identify what action or belief the map is testing.
-
Collect bounded source regions. Prefer direct observations and primary sources. Record the URL or absolute local path, publisher, publication date, retrieval date, section/page/line/timestamp locator, and a short checkable excerpt. Read references/evidence-ladder.md when source quality is disputed.
-
Atomize the reasoning. Create only four node types:
position: the single current verdict;claim: an intermediate proposition;evidence: a faithful statement of one source region;unknown: a specific missing fact that could change the verdict.
-
Type every edge. Use
supports,contradicts,qualifies, ormissing. Add a plain-language note explaining why the source node bears on the target. Topical similarity is not support. Different scope, date, or population is not automatically a contradiction. -
Preserve counterevidence. Do not delete contrary evidence because the provisional verdict survives it. Represent scope differences with
qualifiesedges. -
Express uncertainty structurally. Do not invent confidence percentages. Add an
unknown, narrow the position, or qualify a claim. -
Write UTF-8 JSON with a
.doubt.jsonsuffix. Follow references/map-schema.md. Keep IDs short, stable, and semantic. -
Validate fail-closed. Resolve
scripts/validate.mjsrelative to thisSKILL.md, then run it with Node.js 18 or newer:node <skill-directory>/scripts/validate.mjs decision.doubt.jsonThe bundled validator uses only Node.js built-ins and does not require npm or network access. Fix every finding before reporting success. Only say the map is valid when the command exits
0and printsVALIDfollowed by a 64-character receipt. A file hash, node count, JSON parse, or manual schema review is not a Doubt receipt. If deterministic validation cannot run, report that block instead of inventing success.Render the validated map only when the user has already installed
doubt-ai@0.8.0; do not install or execute a remote package implicitly:doubt map decision.doubt.json --out decision.html -
Verify source snapshots only with explicit network permission. The following command retrieves each recorded HTTP(S) source and fails closed if an excerpt cannot be matched:
doubt verify decision.doubt.json \ --out decision.verified.doubt.jsonNever run this command implicitly. Local file verification does not use the network. Do not write a
verificationobject by hand or hide a mismatch. -
Inspect the deliverable. Confirm that the question, verdict, counterevidence, unknowns, edge notes, and exact source regions remain readable. Treat JSON as the canonical editable artifact; HTML is a shareable view.
Quality gates
A finished map must satisfy all of these:
- exactly one
positionhas incoming reasoning; - every evidence node names one source and participates in an edge;
- every source is used and has dates, a bounded locator, and a substantive excerpt;
- every non-position node has a directed path to the position;
- the reasoning graph has no duplicate edges or directed cycles;
- contrary or qualifying evidence is present when the source set contains it;
- each decision-changing gap is an explicit
unknownnode; - every edge note explains support, contradiction, qualification, or absence;
- the verdict is no broader than the evidence.
Deliver the result
Report:
- the current position in one sentence;
- the strongest counterevidence or qualification;
- the most important unresolved unknown;
- paths to the canonical JSON and any rendered HTML;
- whether deterministic validation and explicit source verification ran.
Never describe a structurally valid map as proven true. Validation establishes traceability and graph integrity; source quality and inference quality still require human review.
Files
5- SKILL.md
fb104196d95.0 KB - references/evidence-ladder.md
5f3bc786ff1.8 KB - references/map-schema.md
532e110bcf3.2 KB - scripts/contract.mjs
c246e89d9417.8 KB - scripts/validate.mjs
89ced40bc12.8 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from github/awesome-copilot8
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narr
Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when
Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in
Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights,
Use this skill when the user shares ad campaign performance data and asks what to cut, scale, or test. Trigger for prompts like "analyze my ad campaigns", "where am I wasting ad spend", "reallocate my ad budget", "which ads are actually working", or "ROAS analysis". Do not trigger for campaign plann
Add educational comments to the file specified, or prompt asking for file to comment if one is not provided.
Write, debug, and optimize Adobe Illustrator automation scripts using ExtendScript (JavaScript/JSX). Use when creating or modifying scripts that manipulate documents, layers, paths, text frames, colors, symbols, artboards, or any Illustrator DOM objects. Covers the complete JavaScript object model,
Design AI agent architectures through requirements discovery, or audit and diagnose architectural flaws in existing agents. Architecture only; excludes implementation and general code review.
Related methodology skillsscan passed
Break a tRPC backend into multiple services with custom routing links that split on the first path segment (op.path.split('.')) to route to different backend service URLs. Define a faux gateway router that merges service routers for the AppRouter type without running them in the same process. Share
Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR). Instead of OCR calling an LLM endpoint, this skill instructs the host agent to perform the code review itself, using OCR only for deterministic engineering: file selection and rule resolution. Use when the host agent should drive the review with its own LL
Guides systematic root-cause debugging. Use when tests fail, builds break, something that worked yesterday broke, behavior doesn't match expectations, or you encounter any unexpected error. Use when you need to figure out what broke and why — a systematic approach to finding and fixing the root caus
Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last
Guides agents through integrating transactional email sending via Mailtrap's Email API, including sandbox testing, domain verification, and API authentication. Use when implementing email-sending features, debugging delivery issues, or setting up safe dev/staging email testing.