evidence-auditor

Audit the evidence supporting each claim and write gaps/concerns into `output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md`. **Trigger**: evidence audit, missing evidence, unsupported claims, 审稿证据审计, 证据缺口. **Use when**: peer review 流程中，需要逐条检查 claim 的证据链、缺 baseline、评测薄弱点。 **Skip if**: 缺少 claims 输入（例如还没有 `output/CLAIMS.md`）。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 只写“缺口/风险/下一步验证”，不要替作者补写论述或引入新主张。

Stars 377

Forks 25

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/evidence-auditor

SKILL.md

Evidence Auditor (peer review)

Goal: for each claim, either (a) point to the supporting evidence in the manuscript, or (b) write a concrete gap with an actionable fix.

Inputs

output/CLAIMS.md

Outputs

output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md

Output format (recommended)

For each claim:

Claim: copy the claim text
Evidence present: what the paper provides (experiments/theory/citations)
Gap / concern: what is missing or weak
Minimal fix: the smallest additional evidence that would address the gap
Severity: major | minor (optional)

Workflow

Iterate claims in output/CLAIMS.md.
For empirical claims, check:
- dataset/task definition is clear
- baselines are appropriate
- evaluation protocol is valid
- ablations/sensitivity analyses exist where needed
For conceptual claims, check:
- definitions are unambiguous
- assumptions are stated
- claims do not exceed what is argued
Write output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md as a list of claim-by-claim entries.

Definition of Done

Every claim from output/CLAIMS.md has an evidence note or a gap item.
“Fix” items are actionable (what to add, not “more experiments”).

Troubleshooting

Issue: you cannot locate the evidence in the paper

Fix:

Mark the claim as “evidence not locatable” and ask for a clearer source pointer (or re-extract claims with better pointers).

Issue: the audit starts proposing new claims