Skip to content
Back to skills

Collecting Evidence

ASecurity

Use when researching a specific pillar and need to create traceable evidence objects. Guides creation of YAML evidence files with semantic IDs, confidence scores, and assumptions.

  • 7 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added May 27, 2026
data-aigodocumentation

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 4 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill collecting-evidence --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Collecting Evidence?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Collecting Evidence
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/synaptiai-collecting-evidence/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/synaptiai-collecting-evidence)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: collecting-evidence
description: Use when researching a specific pillar and need to create traceable evidence objects. Guides creation of YAML evidence files with semantic IDs, confidence scores, and assumptions.
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
---

# Evidence Collection

This skill guides the creation of structured Evidence Objects for a single research pillar.

## Prerequisites

- Ledger workspace initialized (`/ledger-init` completed)
- Pillar assignment (which pillar to research)
- Research scope from `01-pillars/PILLARS.md`

## Workflow

Use TodoWrite to track these mandatory steps:

<required>
1. Load pillar scope and research questions
2. Identify evidence sources
3. Collect raw evidence
4. Create Evidence Objects with semantic IDs
5. Validate evidence quality
6. Check evidence gate (minimum 5 per pillar)
</required>

### Step 1: Load Pillar Scope

Read `01-pillars/PILLARS.md` to understand:
- Pillar priority level
- Specific research questions for this pillar
- Any scope restrictions

See [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) for pillar-specific protocols.

### Step 2: Identify Evidence Sources

For each research question, identify potential sources:

| Source Type | Examples | Typical Confidence |
|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| `url` | Research reports, documentation | 60-90 |
| `pdf` | Academic papers, whitepapers | 70-95 |
| `interview` | User interviews, expert calls | 50-80 |
| `internal-doc` | Company data, prior research | 60-85 |
| `experiment` | A/B tests, prototypes | 70-95 |
| `dataset` | Analytics, survey results | 65-90 |

### Step 3: Collect Raw Evidence

For each source:
1. Extract the key claim(s)
2. Note supporting quotes/data
3. Assess confidence level
4. List assumptions

**Web research protocol:**
- Use WebSearch for discovery
- Use WebFetch to retrieve and analyze content
- Track source URLs and retrieval dates
- Note if sources agree or contradict

### Step 4: Create Evidence Objects

Write YAML files to `02-evidence/<pillar>/`.

**Naming:** Use semantic IDs per [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md).

**Schema:** See [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md).

<good-example>
```yaml
id: EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp
pillar: market
source:
  type: url
  ref: "https://example.com/pricing-research"
  retrieved_at: 2026-01-21
claim: "SMB segment willingness-to-pay peaks at $29/mo for productivity tools."
quote: "Our survey of 500 SMBs found median WTP of $29/month..."
confidence: 0.75
assumptions:
  - "Survey sample representative of target market"
  - "WTP for 'productivity tools' applies to our specific category"
notes: "Sample skewed toward US companies. May need regional validation."
tags:
  - pricing
  - smb
  - wtp
```
- Semantic ID describes content (market-pricing-smb-wtp)
- Falsifiable claim with specific number ($29/mo)
- Honest confidence (0.75, not inflated)
- Explicit assumptions documented
- Source fully traceable
</good-example>

<bad-example>
```yaml
id: EV-001
pillar: market
source:
  type: url
  ref: "some website"
claim: "People like our product"
confidence: 0.95
assumptions: []
```
- Non-semantic ID (EV-001 tells nothing about content)
- Vague, unfalsifiable claim ("people like")
- Overconfident (0.95) without strong source
- No assumptions documented
- Untraceable source reference
</bad-example>

### Step 5: Validate Evidence Quality

Each Evidence Object must pass:

| Check | Requirement |
|-------|-------------|
| Falsifiable claim | Claim can be proven wrong |
| Confidence assigned | 0.0-1.0 value present |
| Assumptions listed | At least 1 assumption |
| Source traceable | Can revisit the source |
| ID is semantic | Follows ID scheme |

**Quality warnings:**
- Confidence > 0.9 without peer-reviewed source
- Multiple evidence objects with identical claims
- Assumptions that can't be tested

### Step 6: Check Evidence Gate

Before synthesis, verify **minimum 5 Evidence Objects** per pillar.

```
Evidence Gate Check: market
├── EV-market-tam-b2b-saas ✓
├── EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp ✓
├── EV-market-growth-remote-tools ✓
├── EV-market-segment-priorities ✓
└── EV-market-competitive-density ✓
Total: 5/5 minimum ✓ GATE PASSED
```

If gate fails, continue research until threshold met.

## User Interaction

Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** when:

### Source prioritization needed
```
Question: "Multiple sources available for [topic]. Which to prioritize?"
Options:
- "Academic/peer-reviewed sources (higher confidence)"
- "Recent industry reports (more current)"
- "Direct user research (more specific)"
- "Research all and compare"
```

### Confidence assessment uncertain
```
Question: "How confident should I rate this claim: '[claim]'?"
Options:
- "High (0.8-0.9) - Strong source, well-supported"
- "Medium (0.5-0.7) - Reasonable source, some uncertainty"
- "Low (0.3-0.5) - Weak source or significant assumptions"
- "Help me assess the source quality"
```

### Contradictory evidence found
```
Question: "Sources disagree on [topic]. Source A says X, Source B says Y."
Options:
- "Create evidence for both, note contradiction"
- "Prioritize more recent source"
- "Prioritize more authoritative source"
- "Research further for resolution"
```

### Evidence gate failing
```
Question: "Only [N] evidence objects for [pillar]. Need [5-N] more to pass gate."
Options:
- "Continue researching this pillar"
- "Accept partial evidence (will affect synthesis quality)"
- "Deprioritize this pillar for MVP"
- "Help me identify additional research areas"
```

## Output

After evidence collection:

```markdown
## Evidence Collection Complete: [pillar]

**Evidence Objects Created:** [N]
**Gate Status:** [PASSED/FAILED]

### Evidence Summary
| ID | Claim Summary | Confidence |
|----|---------------|------------|
| EV-market-tam-b2b-saas | TAM is $X billion | 0.80 |
| EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp | SMB WTP peaks at $29/mo | 0.75 |
| ... | ... | ... |

### Key Findings
- [Top 3 findings from this pillar]

### Contradictions Noted
- [Any conflicting evidence]

### Gaps Remaining
- [Research questions not fully answered]
```

## References

- [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md) - YAML schema
- [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) - Pillar-specific research guidance
- [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md) - Semantic ID creation

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md6.4 KB
  • references/evidence-object-schema.md7.3 KB
  • references/id-generation-rules.md6.5 KB
  • references/research-protocols.md7.2 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.