agentic/.opencode/skills/evidence-extraction/SKILL.md

name, description, license, compatibility, metadata

name	description	license	compatibility	metadata
evidence-extraction	Extract structured evidence from documents with traceability, quotations, and confidence markers	MIT	opencode	audience workflow stage analysts research 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