first commit

2026-06-10 08:20:27 +02:00
commit f439f0f793
39 changed files with 9716 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+name: evidence-extraction
+description: Extract structured evidence from documents with traceability, quotations, and confidence markers
+license: MIT
+compatibility: opencode
+metadata:
+  audience: analysts
+  workflow: research
+  stage: extraction
+---
+
+## What I do
+
+- Read documents and extract evidence relevant to a defined research question
+- Separate direct evidence from interpretation
+- Capture exact quotations or precise paraphrases
+- Record document references for every extracted item
+- Structure findings so they can be audited and synthesized later
+- Mark uncertain or ambiguous findings for review
+
+## When to use me
+
+Use this after the research task has been scoped and prioritized.
+
+Examples:
+- You need requirements, decisions, obligations, controls, or action items extracted from documents
+- You need a traceable evidence table
+- You need to compare what multiple documents say about the same issue
+- You need defensible notes before writing a summary or conclusion
+
+## Inputs I expect
+
+Provide:
+- The research objective or sub-question
+- One or more documents or excerpts
+- Optional triage output from `document-triage`
+- Optional extraction schema if the project already has one
+
+## Core extraction rules
+
+For every finding, preserve:
+
+- Finding ID
+- Topic or theme
+- Evidence type
+- Source document
+- Section, heading, page, or paragraph reference if available
+- Extracted text
+- Short analyst note
+- Confidence level
+- Review flag where needed
+
+Evidence types may include:
+- Requirement
+- Decision
+- Risk
+- Assumption
+- Responsibility
+- Constraint
+- Definition
+- Date or milestone
+- Dependency
+- Open issue
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Read the objective and extraction criteria
+2. Scan the document for relevant passages
+3. Extract only evidence tied to the research question
+4. Distinguish:
+   - Direct statement
+   - Implied interpretation
+   - Missing information
+5. Attach traceable references for each item
+6. Normalize wording without losing meaning
+7. Flag ambiguity, contradiction, or incomplete support
+
+## Output format
+
+Use a structured table like this:
+
+| # | Topic | Evidence Type | Description | Document Reference | Extracted Evidence | Analyst Note | Confidence | Review Needed |
+|---|---|----|-----------|-----|--------------------|------|----|---------|------|---------|-------|
+
+Where:
+- **Description** is concise and factual
+- **Document Reference** is precise enough to locate the source again
+- **Extracted Evidence** is a quote or faithful paraphrase
+- **Analyst Note** explains relevance without overstating certainty
+- **Confidence** is one of: High, Medium, Low
+- **Review Needed** is `Yes` when ambiguity remains
+
+## Comparison mode
+
+If multiple documents cover the same topic, add a second table:
+
+| Topic | Source A | Source B | Agreement | Conflict | Notes |
+|------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----|
+
+Use this to identify contradictions, differences in wording, or missing alignment.
+
+## Quality bar
+
+- Every claim must be traceable to a source
+- Keep extraction atomic: one row per distinct finding
+- Preserve important qualifiers such as "must", "should", "may", "unless", and exceptions
+- Mark uncertainty explicitly instead of smoothing it over
+- Prefer exact citations over memory-based summaries
+
+## Do not
+
+- Do not write the final conclusion here
+- Do not collapse multiple findings into one vague row
+- Do not omit document references
+- Do not present interpretation as if it were a quote
+- Do not silently resolve contradictions
+
+## Hand-off to companion skills
+
+After this skill, use:
+- `research-synthesis` to turn extracted evidence into a conclusion, report, briefing, matrix, or recommendation