Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

build-evidence-map

Builds an evidence map for a disputed decision, linking supporting evidence, counterevidence, qualifications, and missing facts to precise source passages. Produces a structured JSON artifact that makes the reasoning and unresolved questions available for review.

OriginalShow the original description

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.

See how to install

Good for

  • Comparing evidence for a disputed technical choice
  • Synthesizing research with conflicting findings
  • Reviewing a proposal's evidence and unresolved questions
  • Preserving the reasoning behind a consequential decision

Files included (5)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB
  • references/evidence-ladder.md1.8 KB
  • references/map-schema.md3.2 KB
  • scripts/contract.mjs17.8 KB
  • scripts/validate.mjs2.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. Type every edge. Use supports, contradicts, qualifies, or missing. 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.

  5. Preserve counterevidence. Do not delete contrary evidence because the provisional verdict survives it. Represent scope differences with qualifies edges.

  6. Express uncertainty structurally. Do not invent confidence percentages. Add an unknown, narrow the position, or qualify a claim.

  7. Write UTF-8 JSON with a .doubt.json suffix. Follow references/map-schema.md. Keep IDs short, stable, and semantic.

  8. Validate fail-closed. Resolve scripts/validate.mjs relative to this SKILL.md, then run it with Node.js 18 or newer:

    node <skill-directory>/scripts/validate.mjs decision.doubt.json
    

    The 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 0 and prints VALID followed 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
    
  9. 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.json
    

    Never run this command implicitly. Local file verification does not use the network. Do not write a verification object by hand or hide a mismatch.

  10. 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 position has 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 unknown node;
  • 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.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Map an existing codebase into seven documents covering its technology, structure, architecture, conventions, integrations, tests, and concerns. Link findings to file evidence, mark unknowns, and highlight differences between stated plans and the actual implementation.

  • Get oriented in an unfamiliar codebase
  • Prepare documentation for a project handover
  • Compare documented architecture with implementation
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Assess a repository’s readiness for AI agents with AgentRC and generate a standalone HTML dashboard. Review scores across nine areas, see prioritized improvements, and optionally apply scoring policies tailored to an organization.

  • Assessing a repository’s readiness for AI agents
  • Prioritizing improvements from assessment results
  • Reviewing scores under an organization’s own policy
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Generate coding agent instruction files from a project's actual code using AgentRC. Capture detected languages, frameworks, and conventions in one shared file or split rules by topic and project area, with a preview before writing.

  • Create project instructions for VS Code Copilot
  • Refresh agent rules after project changes
  • Split monorepo instructions by project area
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Customize AgentRC readiness assessments to match team or organization standards. Choose or create policies that adjust check importance, disable irrelevant checks, set pass thresholds, and define requirements for automated checks in CI workflows.

  • Set shared readiness standards across an organization
  • Focus assessments on AI tooling
  • Adjust the importance of individual checks
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Analyze supplied ad performance data to identify wasted spend, strong campaigns, and next tests. Compare channels, assess whether test differences are meaningful, and produce budget reallocation recommendations with a prioritized action plan.

  • Identify ads and keywords to pause
  • Find campaigns and audiences worth scaling
  • Assess whether A/B test results are meaningful
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Turn code files into learning resources by adding comments that explain syntax, programming concepts, and design choices. Adjust explanation depth and repetition to the reader’s knowledge while preserving file structure, encoding, and syntax.

  • Add beginner-friendly explanations to existing code
  • Document the reasoning behind syntax and design choices
  • Adjust comment depth for readers with different experience
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

See all skills by github

Report a problem with this skill