# Evidence Ranking

> >

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-evidence-ranking`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [adeerkhan](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/adeerkhan)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [adeerkhan](https://github.com/adeerkhan)
- **Source:** https://github.com/adeerkhan/vitruvius/tree/main/skills/evidence-ranking

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-evidence-ranking
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Evidence Ranking

Score and rank engineering evidence using the tier system from `references/evidence-quality-tiers.md`. This skill provides transparent, auditable evidence scoring — never a black-box "relevance" score.

## Workflow

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    Input["Evidence Items"] --> Identify["Identify Sources"]
    Identify --> Score["Score on Criteria"]
    Score --> Tier["Assign Tier"]
    Tier --> Conflicts["Flag Conflicts"]
    Conflicts --> Output["Ranked Table + Rationale"]
```

## Invocation

```
/evidence-ranking 
```

Optionally provide a list of sources to rank. If none provided, use `scholarly-research` to discover sources first, then rank them.

## Methodology

### Increment Checklist (complete before Output)

- [ ] At least 5 evidence items identified
- [ ] Each item scored on all 5 criteria (source tier, methodology, citation authority, reproducibility, recency)
- [ ] Tier assigned to each item (1-4)
- [ ] Conflicts between sources identified
- [ ] Evidence strength stated with justification

If any checkbox is unchecked, complete the missing work before writing output.

1. **Identify evidence items** — from user input or scholarly-research discovery. Each item needs: title, authors, year, venue, DOI/URL, and a brief summary of the claim it supports.

2. **Score each source** using the criteria in `references/evidence-ranking-methodology.md`.

3. **Assign tier and confidence** — see `references/evidence-ranking-methodology.md`.

4. **Flag conflicts** — when sources disagree, identify the conflict, note which is newer, which is jurisdiction-specific, and what a decision-maker should weigh.

## Output

### Inline Summary (chat response)
- Research question
- Top 3 sources by tier and score
- Conflicts identified (if Any)
- Overall evidence strength for the question

### Full Ranking (saved to disk)

Save to `outputs/evidence-ranking/.md`:

```markdown
# Evidence Ranking: 

## Question

## Evidence Items

| # | Source | Year | Venue | Tier | Score | Key Claim | Status |
|---|--------|------|-------|------|-------|-----------|--------|
| 1 | [Author](DOI) | 2024 | Journal | 1 | 9 |  | verified |
| 2 | [Author](DOI) | 2023 | Conference | 3 | 5 |  | verified |

## Tier Distribution
- **Tier 1:**  sources
- **Tier 2:**  sources
- **Tier 3:**  sources
- **Tier 4:**  sources (rejected as primary)

## Scoring Rationale

### Source 1: [title]
- **Tier:** 1 | **Score:** 9/10
- **Why:** Standard/code provision, cited by [standard], experimental validation
- **Limitations:** 

## Conflicts

### Conflict: 
- **Source A** says:  [Tier 1]
- **Source B** says:  [Tier 2]
- **Resolution:** A is newer and cited by standards; B is jurisdiction-limited

## Evidence Strength
- **Overall:** Strong / Moderate / Weak
- **Recommendation:** 
```

### Quality Gate (mandatory before returning)

Self-check the output. If any check fails, retry once with feedback:

1. **Source count** — at least 5 sources ranked. If < 5, expand search.
2. **Tier distribution** — at least 2 tiers represented. If all Tier 4, re-search with better terms.
3. **Scoring rationale** — each source has explicit scoring rationale. If missing, add reasoning.
4. **Conflict identification** — conflicts between sources are flagged. If none found but sources disagree, re-analyze.
5. **Evidence strength** — overall strength is stated with justification. If missing, add reasoning.

**Retry logic:** If quality gate fails, re-run the ranking once with the specific failure as feedback. If it fails again, return the best output with a `Weak` evidence strength and list the unresolved issues.

## Scope and Boundaries

- This skill scores evidence — it does NOT select the "best" source. Human engineering judgment decides.
- **Research-only, not for final engineering sign-off.**
- Never fabricate scores. If a source cannot be assessed, mark it `unverified`.
- Tier 4 sources are flagged as rejected for primary use but may support context.
- Evidence quality: see `references/evidence-quality-tiers.md`.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [adeerkhan](https://github.com/adeerkhan)
- **Source:** [adeerkhan/vitruvius](https://github.com/adeerkhan/vitruvius)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-evidence-ranking
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/adeerkhan
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.