Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add 3yesore/LetUenforskills --skill asa-evidence-grounding-auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/3yesore/LetUenforskillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/3yesore/letuenforskills/asa-evidence-grounding-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/3yesore/letuenforskills/asa-evidence-grounding-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/3yesore/letuenforskills/asa-evidence-grounding-auditor/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/3yesore/letuenforskills/asa-evidence-grounding-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/3yesore/letuenforskills/asa-evidence-grounding-auditor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00030 | $0.01208 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00604 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
asa-evidence-grounding-auditor scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ASA Evidence Grounding Auditor
Use this internal meta-skill when a model must decide whether a skill analysis is trustworthy enough to publish or reuse.
This skill fixes the failure mode where a fluent report hides unsupported claims, weak evidence, copied passages, overconfident inference, or unsafe anchors selected for reuse.
Inputs
- Deterministic inventory and source snapshot.
- Structure analysis and workflow analysis artifacts.
- Evidence objects attached to claims and workflow steps.
- Quality rule outputs when available.
Process
- List the major claims made by the analysis.
- Classify each claim as
explicit,structural,inferred,unsupported, orconflicting. - Check whether high-confidence claims have direct evidence.
- Check whether inferred claims are marked as inferred and use cautious confidence.
- Detect vague evidence, missing source paths, copied long passages, and quote overuse.
- Identify claims that sound plausible but only come from model reasoning.
- Convert reusable review findings into evidence, risk, confidence, and unsupported-claim anchors.
- Rate publishability as
publishable,needs_revision, orblocked. - Write concise remediation notes for every major or blocker issue.
Output Contract
Return evidence audit content suitable for review_report.json:
evidence_audit:
supported_claims: []
inferred_claims: []
unsupported_claims: []
missing_evidence: []
conflicts: []
publishable:
rationale:
anchors:
evidence_anchor:
- id:
claim_id:
evidence_kind: direct_quote | structural_inventory | workflow_order | resource_reference | test_output | model_inference
source_path:
quote:
supports:
limitations: []
reusable_as: quality_gate | citation_pattern | review_note | learning_note
confidence: high | medium | low | unknown
risk_anchor:
- id:
risk_type: over_inference | missing_evidence | copied_passage | runtime_claim | trigger_conflict | unsafe_reuse | stale_context
affected_claims: []
severity: high | medium | low
mitigation:
blocks_reuse: true | false
evidence: []
confidence_anchor:
- id:
target_id:
target_kind: claim | workflow_step | resource_role | reuse_asset | composition_candidate
confidence: high | medium | low | unknown
confidence_basis: direct | structural | inferred | conflicting | absent
downgrade_reason:
upgrade_requirements: []
evidence: []
unsupported_claim_anchor:
- id:
claim:
why_unsupported:
likely_source: model_reasoning | missing_source | ambiguous_text | contradicted_by_source | unknown
recommended_action: remove | rewrite_as_inference | add_evidence | block_publish
safe_reuse: true | false
evidence: []
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 142 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A fd0d30f5bbcf
asa-evidence-grounding-auditor is a skill published in the GitHub repository 3yesore/LetUenforskills (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,208 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
impl-validator
Validate whether an implementation matches its stated goal. Use this skill when a skill or agent wants a second opinion on its own output, when the user says "check this implementation", "validate what you did", "is this correct?", "review the output", or "did you do this right?". Also spawned automatically as a…
api-linter
MCP definition linter rules reference. Use when bun run lint:mcp or bun run devcheck reports a lint error or warning (format-parity, schema-is-object, name-format, server-json-, etc.) and you need to understand the rule, its severity, and how to fix it. Every rule ID the linter emits has an entry in this doc.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…
link-memory
Use after important user-approved decisions, when durable context should be proposed or reviewed, and for explicit Link memory lifecycle work: remember, recall, review, update, archive, restore, forget, or explain local memories through the CLI without requiring MCP.
link-retrieve
Use before answering work that may depend on user memory, project history, source-backed notes, or prior decisions; retrieve compact Link context through the CLI without loading the whole wiki or requiring MCP.