Check a dataset before analysis
Find missing values, inconsistent formats, duplicates, and questions that could invalidate results.
5,430,355 AI resources indexedWorking toward the world’s largest AI resource index.
Use when researching a specific pillar and need to create traceable evidence objects. Guides creation of YAML evidence files with semantic IDs, confidence scores, and assumptions.
---
name: collecting-evidence-d5d3bb558e8c
description: Use when researching a specific pillar and need to create traceable evidence objects. Guides creation of YAML evidence files with semantic IDs, confidence scores, and assumptions.
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
---
# Evidence Collection
This skill guides the creation of structured Evidence Objects for a single research pillar.
## Prerequisites
- Ledger workspace initialized (`/ledger-init` completed)
- Pillar assignment (which pillar to research)
- Research scope from `01-pillars/PILLARS.md`
## Workflow
Use TodoWrite to track these mandatory steps:
<required>
1. Load pillar scope and research questions
2. Identify evidence sources
3. Collect raw evidence
4. Create Evidence Objects with semantic IDs
5. Validate evidence quality
6. Check evidence gate (minimum 5 per pillar)
</required>
### Step 1: Load Pillar Scope
Read `01-pillars/PILLARS.md` to understand:
- Pillar priority level
- Specific research questions for this pillar
- Any scope restrictions
See [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) for pillar-specific protocols.
### Step 2: Identify Evidence Sources
For each research question, identify potential sources:
| Source Type | Examples | Typical Confidence |
|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| `url` | Research reports, documentation | 60-90 |
| `pdf` | Academic papers, whitepapers | 70-95 |
| `interview` | User interviews, expert calls | 50-80 |
| `internal-doc` | Company data, prior research | 60-85 |
| `experiment` | A/B tests, prototypes | 70-95 |
| `dataset` | Analytics, survey results | 65-90 |
### Step 3: Collect Raw Evidence
For each source:
1. Extract the key claim(s)
2. Note supporting quotes/data
3. Assess confidence level
4. List assumptions
**Web research protocol:**
- Use WebSearch for discovery
- Use WebFetch to retrieve and analyze content
- Track source URLs and retrieval dates
- Note if sources agree or contradict
### Step 4: Create Evidence Objects
Write YAML files to `02-evidence/<pillar>/`.
**Naming:** Use semantic IDs per [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md).
**Schema:** See [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md).
<good-example>
```yaml
id: EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp
pillar: market
source:
type: url
ref: "https://example.com/pricing-research"
retrieved_at: 2026-01-21
claim: "SMB segment willingness-to-pay peaks at $29/mo for productivity tools."
quote: "Our survey of 500 SMBs found median WTP of $29/month..."
confidence: 0.75
assumptions:
- "Survey sample representative of target market"
- "WTP for 'productivity tools' applies to our specific category"
notes: "Sample skewed toward US companies. May need regional validation."
tags:
- pricing
- smb
- wtp
```
- Semantic ID describes content (market-pricing-smb-wtp)
- Falsifiable claim with specific number ($29/mo)
- Honest confidence (0.75, not inflated)
- Explicit assumptions documented
- Source fully traceable
</good-example>
<bad-example>
```yaml
id: EV-001
pillar: market
source:
type: url
ref: "some website"
claim: "People like our product"
confidence: 0.95
assumptions: []
```
- Non-semantic ID (EV-001 tells nothing about content)
- Vague, unfalsifiable claim ("people like")
- Overconfident (0.95) without strong source
- No assumptions documented
- Untraceable source reference
</bad-example>
### Step 5: Validate Evidence Quality
Each Evidence Object must pass:
| Check | Requirement |
|-------|-------------|
| Falsifiable claim | Claim can be proven wrong |
| Confidence assigned | 0.0-1.0 value present |
| Assumptions listed | At least 1 assumption |
| Source traceable | Can revisit the source |
| ID is semantic | Follows ID scheme |
**Quality warnings:**
- Confidence > 0.9 without peer-reviewed source
- Multiple evidence objects with identical claims
- Assumptions that can't be tested
### Step 6: Check Evidence Gate
Before synthesis, verify **minimum 5 Evidence Objects** per pillar.
```
Evidence Gate Check: market
├── EV-market-tam-b2b-saas ✓
├── EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp ✓
├── EV-market-growth-remote-tools ✓
├── EV-market-segment-priorities ✓
└── EV-market-competitive-density ✓
Total: 5/5 minimum ✓ GATE PASSED
```
If gate fails, continue research until threshold met.
## User Interaction
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** when:
### Source prioritization needed
```
Question: "Multiple sources available for [topic]. Which to prioritize?"
Options:
- "Academic/peer-reviewed sources (higher confidence)"
- "Recent industry reports (more current)"
- "Direct user research (more specific)"
- "Research all and compare"
```
### Confidence assessment uncertain
```
Question: "How confident should I rate this claim: '[claim]'?"
Options:
- "High (0.8-0.9) - Strong source, well-supported"
- "Medium (0.5-0.7) - Reasonable source, some uncertainty"
- "Low (0.3-0.5) - Weak source or significant assumptions"
- "Help me assess the source quality"
```
### Contradictory evidence found
```
Question: "Sources disagree on [topic]. Source A says X, Source B says Y."
Options:
- "Create evidence for both, note contradiction"
- "Prioritize more recent source"
- "Prioritize more authoritative source"
- "Research further for resolution"
```
### Evidence gate failing
```
Question: "Only [N] evidence objects for [pillar]. Need [5-N] more to pass gate."
Options:
- "Continue researching this pillar"
- "Accept partial evidence (will affect synthesis quality)"
- "Deprioritize this pillar for MVP"
- "Help me identify additional research areas"
```
## Output
After evidence collection:
```markdown
## Evidence Collection Complete: [pillar]
**Evidence Objects Created:** [N]
**Gate Status:** [PASSED/FAILED]
### Evidence Summary
| ID | Claim Summary | Confidence |
|----|---------------|------------|
| EV-market-tam-b2b-saas | TAM is $X billion | 0.80 |
| EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp | SMB WTP peaks at $29/mo | 0.75 |
| ... | ... | ... |
### Key Findings
- [Top 3 findings from this pillar]
### Contradictions Noted
- [Any conflicting evidence]
### Gaps Remaining
- [Research questions not fully answered]
```
## References
- [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md) - YAML schema
- [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) - Pillar-specific research guidance
- [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md) - Semantic ID creation
---
name: collecting-evidence-d5d3bb558e8c
description: Use when researching a specific pillar and need to create traceable evidence objects. Guides creation of YAML evidence files with semantic IDs, confidence scores, and assumptions.
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
---
# Evidence Collection
This skill guides the creation of structured Evidence Objects for a single research pillar.
## Prerequisites
- Ledger workspace initialized (`/ledger-init` completed)
- Pillar assignment (which pillar to research)
- Research scope from `01-pillars/PILLARS.md`
## Workflow
Use TodoWrite to track these mandatory steps:
<required>
1. Load pillar scope and research questions
2. Identify evidence sources
3. Collect raw evidence
4. Create Evidence Objects with semantic IDs
5. Validate evidence quality
6. Check evidence gate (minimum 5 per pillar)
</required>
### Step 1: Load Pillar Scope
Read `01-pillars/PILLARS.md` to understand:
- Pillar priority level
- Specific research questions for this pillar
- Any scope restrictions
See [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) for pillar-specific protocols.
### Step 2: Identify Evidence Sources
For each research question, identify potential sources:
| Source Type | Examples | Typical Confidence |
|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| `url` | Research reports, documentation | 60-90 |
| `pdf` | Academic papers, whitepapers | 70-95 |
| `interview` | User interviews, expert calls | 50-80 |
| `internal-doc` | Company data, prior research | 60-85 |
| `experiment` | A/B tests, prototypes | 70-95 |
| `dataset` | Analytics, survey results | 65-90 |
### Step 3: Collect Raw Evidence
For each source:
1. Extract the key claim(s)
2. Note supporting quotes/data
3. Assess confidence level
4. List assumptions
**Web research protocol:**
- Use WebSearch for discovery
- Use WebFetch to retrieve and analyze content
- Track source URLs and retrieval dates
- Note if sources agree or contradict
### Step 4: Create Evidence Objects
Write YAML files to `02-evidence/<pillar>/`.
**Naming:** Use semantic IDs per [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md).
**Schema:** See [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md).
<good-example>
```yaml
id: EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp
pillar: market
source:
type: url
ref: "https://example.com/pricing-research"
retrieved_at: 2026-01-21
claim: "SMB segment willingness-to-pay peaks at $29/mo for productivity tools."
quote: "Our survey of 500 SMBs found median WTP of $29/month..."
confidence: 0.75
assumptions:
- "Survey sample representative of target market"
- "WTP for 'productivity tools' applies to our specific category"
notes: "Sample skewed toward US companies. May need regional validation."
tags:
- pricing
- smb
- wtp
```
- Semantic ID describes content (market-pricing-smb-wtp)
- Falsifiable claim with specific number ($29/mo)
- Honest confidence (0.75, not inflated)
- Explicit assumptions documented
- Source fully traceable
</good-example>
<bad-example>
```yaml
id: EV-001
pillar: market
source:
type: url
ref: "some website"
claim: "People like our product"
confidence: 0.95
assumptions: []
```
- Non-semantic ID (EV-001 tells nothing about content)
- Vague, unfalsifiable claim ("people like")
- Overconfident (0.95) without strong source
- No assumptions documented
- Untraceable source reference
</bad-example>
### Step 5: Validate Evidence Quality
Each Evidence Object must pass:
| Check | Requirement |
|-------|-------------|
| Falsifiable claim | Claim can be proven wrong |
| Confidence assigned | 0.0-1.0 value present |
| Assumptions listed | At least 1 assumption |
| Source traceable | Can revisit the source |
| ID is semantic | Follows ID scheme |
**Quality warnings:**
- Confidence > 0.9 without peer-reviewed source
- Multiple evidence objects with identical claims
- Assumptions that can't be tested
### Step 6: Check Evidence Gate
Before synthesis, verify **minimum 5 Evidence Objects** per pillar.
```
Evidence Gate Check: market
├── EV-market-tam-b2b-saas ✓
├── EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp ✓
├── EV-market-growth-remote-tools ✓
├── EV-market-segment-priorities ✓
└── EV-market-competitive-density ✓
Total: 5/5 minimum ✓ GATE PASSED
```
If gate fails, continue research until threshold met.
## User Interaction
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** when:
### Source prioritization needed
```
Question: "Multiple sources available for [topic]. Which to prioritize?"
Options:
- "Academic/peer-reviewed sources (higher confidence)"
- "Recent industry reports (more current)"
- "Direct user research (more specific)"
- "Research all and compare"
```
### Confidence assessment uncertain
```
Question: "How confident should I rate this claim: '[claim]'?"
Options:
- "High (0.8-0.9) - Strong source, well-supported"
- "Medium (0.5-0.7) - Reasonable source, some uncertainty"
- "Low (0.3-0.5) - Weak source or significant assumptions"
- "Help me assess the source quality"
```
### Contradictory evidence found
```
Question: "Sources disagree on [topic]. Source A says X, Source B says Y."
Options:
- "Create evidence for both, note contradiction"
- "Prioritize more recent source"
- "Prioritize more authoritative source"
- "Research further for resolution"
```
### Evidence gate failing
```
Question: "Only [N] evidence objects for [pillar]. Need [5-N] more to pass gate."
Options:
- "Continue researching this pillar"
- "Accept partial evidence (will affect synthesis quality)"
- "Deprioritize this pillar for MVP"
- "Help me identify additional research areas"
```
## Output
After evidence collection:
```markdown
## Evidence Collection Complete: [pillar]
**Evidence Objects Created:** [N]
**Gate Status:** [PASSED/FAILED]
### Evidence Summary
| ID | Claim Summary | Confidence |
|----|---------------|------------|
| EV-market-tam-b2b-saas | TAM is $X billion | 0.80 |
| EV-market-pricing-smb-wtp | SMB WTP peaks at $29/mo | 0.75 |
| ... | ... | ... |
### Key Findings
- [Top 3 findings from this pillar]
### Contradictions Noted
- [Any conflicting evidence]
### Gaps Remaining
- [Research questions not fully answered]
```
## References
- [references/evidence-object-schema.md](references/evidence-object-schema.md) - YAML schema
- [references/research-protocols.md](references/research-protocols.md) - Pillar-specific research guidance
- [references/id-generation-rules.md](references/id-generation-rules.md) - Semantic ID creation
Imported from the listed AgentSkill.sh category. Complete supplied package files and notices are retained. Required external tools and credentials are not installed. No bundled code was executed during import. Individual agent task behavior has not been tested.