agentsclimarketplace

Ve evidence auditor

Skill onyx679/automotive-ve-ai-skills-kit/skills/ve-evidence-auditor

AI Skill templates and workflow scoring tools for automotive value engineering and VAVE productivity scenarios

Install
npx -y skills add onyx679/automotive-ve-ai-skills-kit --skill ve-evidence-auditor

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Audit value-engineering AI Skill claims against concrete evidence links, review status, and honest wording boundaries. Use when preparing resumes, portfolios, project reports, best-practice documents, release notes, or management summaries that must distinguish verified work, submitted PRs, pending reviews, assumptions, and claims that should not be made.

SKILL.md

3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

VE Evidence Auditor

Use this skill to turn project claims into an evidence-backed claim matrix before publishing them in a resume, portfolio, report, or internal best-practice document.

Inputs

Accept any of:

  • Resume bullets or project descriptions.
  • GitHub repositories, releases, pull requests, issues, CI runs, or portfolio pages.
  • Work logs, adoption reports, Skill outputs, SOPs, and demo artifacts.
  • A CSV claim ledger with claim, source_kind, evidence_level, verdict, evidence_status, evidence_url, resume_wording, and boundary.

Workflow

  1. Break the text into atomic claims. Each claim should assert one thing only.
  2. Attach a concrete evidence URL or file path to every claim.
  3. Grade the source:
    • source_kind: platform-record, repository-artifact, third-party, self-reported, or mixed.
    • evidence_level: L4 for directly checkable platform/repository records; L3 for multiple independent sources; L2 for one credible third-party source; L1 for self-reported or weak evidence.
    • verdict: confirmed, largely-credible, doubtful, or debunked.
  4. Mark evidence status:
    • verified: public link or local artifact proves the claim.
    • open: submitted but not merged, approved, or accepted.
    • pending-review: waiting for maintainer, manager, or business review.
    • missing: no evidence yet.
  5. Classify claim level:
    • resume-ready: verified evidence exists and wording is not overstated.
    • boundary-only: evidence exists, but wording must mention open or pending status.
    • do-not-claim: evidence is missing, wording implies unearned completion, or the claim depends on confidential/internal facts not available.
  6. Rewrite risky claims into safe wording.
  7. Keep a "do not claim yet" section for tempting but unsupported statements.

Output

Return:

# Evidence Claim Matrix

## Summary

- Resume-ready:
- Boundary-only:
- Do-not-claim:

## Claim Review

| Claim | Source | Evidence level | Verdict | Status | Claim level | Evidence | Safe wording | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Do Not Claim Yet

- <claim>: <reason>

Quality Checks

  • Never upgrade open or pending-review PRs into merged contribution claims.
  • Never claim internal deployment, supplier data handling, or business impact unless there is approved evidence.
  • Prefer "submitted PR", "published demo", "verified by CI", and "review-pending" over vague prestige wording.
  • Treat self-reported or marketing-only evidence as L1 unless it is backed by a directly checkable platform record.
  • If a claim has no URL, artifact, or owner-verifiable source, keep it out of the resume.
  • Preserve the difference between public portfolio evidence and real enterprise work.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.