evidence-based-development — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited evidence-based-development (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Foundation skill that governs how Claude gathers, presents, and acts on evidence during development.
EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS, ALWAYS. If you haven't read the code, you don't know what it does.
This is non-negotiable. No recommendation without a citation. No behavioral claim without verification. Confidence is not evidence.
Never propose a change without first showing the current state. Read the file, cite the line, then suggest.
Pattern: "Here's what I found at file.rb:42 → here's what I recommend → here's why."
Every claim about code must include a file:line reference. No exceptions.
file_path:line_number format in all findingsAll findings, review comments, and issues use P1/P2/P3 classification. This priority system operationalizes the organizational hard boundary "No Ungrounded Claims" — every finding must carry evidence (file:line citation, test output, runtime observation) proportional to its priority, and no recommendation may be made without verification against current sources.
| Priority | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Must fix — blocks merge, security issue, data loss risk, broken functionality | Fix before proceeding |
| P2 | Should fix — logic error, missing edge case, test gap, convention violation | Fix in this PR |
| P3 | Consider — style preference, optimization opportunity | Fix in-PR by default. Cosmetic P3 in untouched files: fix-if-bounded or document inline (default) / follow-up issue (minimalScope mode only). Finding triage is NEVER a valid escalation trigger — see skills/llm-operator-principles/SKILL.md. |
For any non-trivial claim about code behavior:
Skip this pattern for obvious facts (e.g., "this file exists"). Use it for behavioral claims, security assessments, and performance analysis.
Always display findings BEFORE recommendations or actions:
Never bury findings after a long narrative. The human should see issues immediately.
When synthesizing findings from multiple sources (agents, reviews, tools):
file:line — same location means same findingEvery skill should include a verification step. Common patterns:
| Method | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Run tests | After code changes |
| Read code / check git diff | Before behavioral claims or after edits |
| Parallel Bash | Run independent checks simultaneously |
| Agent(Explore) | Investigate unfamiliar code in separate context |
Stop and reassess when:
When evidence is unavailable:
| Excuse | Response |
|---|---|
| "I'm pretty sure this is how it works" | Pretty sure is not evidence. Read the file. |
| "I already checked earlier" | Earlier is stale. Show fresh evidence. |
| "This is obvious from the pattern" | Obvious claims need obvious proof. Cite file:line. |
| "Checking would take too long" | Unchecked claims waste more time when wrong. |
| "The user already knows this" | The citation is for accuracy, not the audience. |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.