skills.rest
human-avatar
human-avatarOFFICIAL
Explore all skills by this author →
GitHub

investigation-evidence-audit

Inventory evidence sources and assess quality, conflicts, and gaps for claims.

212|23|Updated May 23, 2026
Search Tags:#systematic review#causal inference#meta-analysis#fact checking#research quality#evidence evaluation#conflicts of interest
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill investigation-evidence-audit
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: investigation-evidence-audit
Source: https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/tree/main/skills/investigation-evidence-audit
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill investigation-evidence-audit

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps you determine whether the evidence supporting a claim is strong, complete, and appropriately matched to what the claim actually asserts—so you can avoid being misled by weak or mismatched research.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evidence-type hierarchy: Ranks evidence from RCTs to mere assertions so you can see what kind of warrant you truly have.
  • Within-tier quality checks: Evaluates sample adequacy, methodology, replication, peer review, and recency for each key source.
  • Conflicts of interest review: Identifies whether funding or incentives could bias results.
  • Notable-absence mapping: Names what evidence should exist if the claim were true, and calls out missing replications or expected reviews.
  • Fit between evidence and claim: Tests for overgeneralization, population/context mismatch, and causal gaps.
  • Overall evidence verdict: Produces a structured conclusion about the claim’s evidentiary strength and what would count as adequate support.

Quick Start

Use the investigation-evidence-audit skill to evaluate a claim by listing the provided studies or data points, classifying each by evidence tier, checking quality and conflicts, identifying what’s missing, and concluding with an evidence-strength verdict.

Frequently Asked Questions about investigation-evidence-audit

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I evaluate the strength of evidence supporting a research claim?▼

To evaluate evidence strength, inventory all available sources, classify each by its evidence tier, assess methodological quality and conflicts of interest, and produce a structured verdict on whether the evidence sufficiently supports the claim.

What is the best way to check for conflicts of interest in a systematic review?▼

Checking for conflicts of interest involves reviewing the funding sources and incentives behind each study to identify whether financial or ideological backing could bias the results and weaken the overall evidence evaluation.

How does an evidence hierarchy audit identify causal gaps in fact checking?▼

An evidence hierarchy audit identifies causal gaps by testing the fit between the evidence and the claim, specifically checking for overgeneralization, population mismatches, and missing replications that should exist if the claim were true.

Can I use this approach to assess methodological quality for clinical decision support?▼

Yes, you can assess methodological quality for clinical decision support by evaluating sample adequacy, replication status, peer review, and recency within each evidence tier to judge if the research is properly matched to the clinical claim.

What steps are needed to map notable absences in a meta-analysis?▼

Mapping notable absences in a meta-analysis requires naming what specific evidence or replications should exist if the claim were true, and explicitly calling out the missing studies or expected reviews that currently limit the evidence base.

When should I not rely on a single high-tier study for evidence evaluation?▼

You should not rely on a single high-tier study when notable absences exist, such as missing independent replications, unaddressed conflicts of interest, or a population mismatch between the study context and the broader claim being asserted.

Related Skills

Explore More Education & Research Skills→
ShubhamsabooShubhamsaboo
131.7k

fact-checker

Guide structured fact-checking through claim identification, evidence gathering, and credibility assessment.

Community
Basic
lyndonkllyndonkl
142

domain-research-health-science

Formulates PICOT questions and grades evidence certainty using GRADE frameworks.

Community
Advanced
DieStokDieStok

literature-review

Automate systematic literature reviews across multiple databases with verified citations.

Community
Advanced
gagan114662gagan114662

researcher-hand-skill

Conduct autonomous deep research and produce structured, fact-checked reports.

Community
Advanced