evidence-audit

Audit research evidence for integrity, reproducibility, and claim support before promotion.

Updated Aug 18, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Nitrogen216/awesome-dsh-mods --skill evidence-audit-nitrogen216
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: evidence-audit
Source: https://github.com/Nitrogen216/awesome-dsh-mods/tree/main/modes/dsh-autoresearch/skills/evidence-audit
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Nitrogen216/awesome-dsh-mods --skill evidence-audit-nitrogen216

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Research pipelines often promote results based on unverified evidence, leading to invalid claims, leaked test data, or non-reproducible metrics. This Skill audits confirmed evidence before promotion so that only valid, reproducible results support bounded claims. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Deterministic Evidence Audit: Inspects baseline and candidate commits, configs, data splits, preprocessing, seeds, commands, and raw result paths to verify metric recomputation and aggregation. - Leakage and Validity Checks: Detects data leakage, accidental test selection, missing cases, and failed runs, and verifies the implementation matches the adaptation plan. - Structured Verdict Recording: Writes a promotion audit report with one of three verdicts (audit_pass, audit_fix, audit_fail) plus full provenance of commits, configs, seeds, and commands. - Use Case: Before promoting a candidate model that beat a baseline, run this audit to confirm the comparison is valid, the full-budget result supports the bounded claim, and optionally gather an independent reviewer verdict. ## Quick Start Audit the confirmed experiment evidence and write a promotion verdict to research/PROMOTION_AUDIT.md before promoting the candidate.

Frequently Asked Questions about evidence-audit

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I audit experiment evidence before promoting a research result?▼

Inspect the fixed baseline and candidate commits, configs, data splits, preprocessing, seeds, commands, and raw result paths, then recompute metrics and aggregation. Record the outcome as audit_pass, audit_fix, or audit_fail in research/PROMOTION_AUDIT.md.

How to detect data leakage in machine learning experiments?▼

Check for leakage by reviewing data splits, preprocessing steps, and test selection logic against the experiment configuration. Also look for accidental test selection, missing cases, and failed runs that could invalidate the comparison.

When should I run an evidence audit in a research pipeline?▼

Run it before promoting a confirmed result, or when a concrete anomaly could change a decision. Do not trigger it after every ordinary screening failure, since that turns assurance into the research loop.

Can I use an external AI reviewer for evidence verification?▼

Yes, a fresh Codex or Claude Code review can serve as optional independent evidence when its result can change promotion. Give the reviewer source and artifact paths with a neutral question, and record the limitation if a provider is unavailable.

What are the limitations of automated evidence audits?▼

The audit does not decide metric correctness or reproducibility via Oracle-style judgment; it relies on deterministic local inspection. Escalation for ambiguous promotion decisions belongs to a separate promotion-review step.