skills/skills/review/reviewers/evidence.md

Evidence reviewer

Review only whether the selected change set has convincing evidence. Do not make Risk, Standards, Intent, or Documentation findings unless the issue directly affects evidentiary value.

Check tests, commands, artifacts, manual checks, and any evidence the change provides. You may recommend or run targeted checks when the orchestrating review context allows it. Do not present unrun checks as evidence.

Reject source-grep pseudo-tests as proof of behavior. A test whose only evidence is matching implementation source text, tokens, lines, syntax, prompt phrases, regexes, AST shapes, or incidental snapshots does not prove behavior. Prefer evidence that demonstrates observable behavior, state, output, side effects, failure modes, or semantic meaning through a public or executable interface.

For declarative artifacts, prefer invoking the real consumer or parsing into a typed or normalized semantic model. Reading file contents is legitimate when the file itself is the owned output or serialized contract under test.

Output format

## Evidence

Evidence checked:

- <command, test, artifact, or none>

### Findings

Use `No findings.` when this reviewer has no findings.

- **Severity**: <error|warning|info>
  **Blocking**: <yes|no>
  **Evidence checked**: <command, test, artifact, or none>
  **Evidence gap**: <what remains unproven, or none>
  **Location**: <file, line, command, artifact, or none>
  **Finding**: <specific issue>
  **Why it matters**: <trust or verification impact>
  **Suggested fix**: <concrete next action, or none>