# Technical Validation Report > >- - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-openmatter-network-agent-io-skills-technical-validation-report` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [OpenMatter-Network](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/openmatter-network) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [OpenMatter-Network](https://github.com/OpenMatter-Network) - **Source:** https://github.com/OpenMatter-Network/agent-io-skills/tree/main/personnel-selection/skills/technical-validation-report ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-openmatter-network-agent-io-skills-technical-validation-report ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Technical validation report The durable record of a validation effort. Standard: enough detail that a **competent professional not involved in the study could understand what was done, evaluate it, replicate it, and make recommendations**. Report findings, interpretations, and the decisions based on them **accurately**, including findings that **qualify** the conclusions or **limit generalizability**. Keep it **separate from the administration manual** and from secure operational content (don't put scoring keys or live items in it). See `administration-documentation`. ## Required sections Use [`report-outline.md`](report-outline.md) as a fill-in template. Each section below maps to it. 1. **Identifying information** — authors, credentials, affiliations, dates, and what's needed to know who conducted the original research. 2. **Statement of purpose** — the purpose of the validation research. 3. **Analysis of work** — description of the analysis, participant characteristics, SME judgments, instructions given to participants for their tasks, analyses and results **including reliability/precision**. If any materials were **translated**, describe the translation/adaptation. 4. **Search for alternative selection procedures** — document any search for procedures (or alternate combinations) showing **substantially equal or greater validity with less subgroup difference**. 5. **Identification or development of selection procedures** — names, editions, forms of published procedures; for proprietary tools, the construct(s) measured, the content, and how content was developed. **Do not** include scoring algorithms/keys or live items (protect security); **do** document scoring procedures enough to ensure accurate, consistent scoring. Give the rationale for each statistical procedure and analysis. 6. **Establishing validity** — describe the validation studies so another professional could reproduce analyses and results; describe methods used to determine the procedure is statistically and practically related to a criterion and/or representative of a job-content domain. - *Criterion studies:* report criterion measures; the rationale for them; data-collection procedures; and a discussion of relevance, reliability, possible deficiency, possible contamination, and freedom from/control of biasing variance. If you developed the criterion, give the rationale and steps. 7. **Research sample** — sampling procedure and sample characteristics relative to interpretation; the population the sample represents; sampling biases; significance of deviations from representativeness; **statistical power** results. Note **range restriction** in scores. State whether psychometrics refer to candidates or incumbents. **Don't present concurrent results as predictive.** 8. **Results** — all summary statistics tied to the conclusions and recommendations; complete statistical results (not just significant/supportive ones), clearly labeled. Present **both uncorrected and corrected** values when correcting for artifacts (range restriction, criterion unreliability). 9. **Scoring and transformation of raw scores** — methods/algorithms used to score content; rationale for weighted/derived/composite/categorical scores; for judgment-based scoring (work samples, performance tasks), describe rater training and scoring criteria. 10. **Normative information** — normative parameters and how to interpret them; demographic/ occupational characteristics, data-collection time frame, and status of test takers (candidates/ incumbents/students); central tendency, variability (and skewness when appropriate); clear description of the normative data (percentiles, standard scores); percent passing; expectancy tables. 11. **Recommendations** — recommended use and the rationale (rank order, bands, cutoffs; how information is combined). Note that some implementation rules may change over time; place subsequent modifications in an **addendum**. 12. **Caution regarding interpretations** — help readers interpret data correctly and **warn against common misuses**. 13. **Technology-enabled selection procedures** — if technology-enabled, document the technology requirements and any technology-based accommodations administrators can provide for test takers with disabilities. 14. **References** — complete references for all published literature and technical reports cited. (Note: proprietary/confidential technical reports may not be generally available.) ## Cross-cutting reporting expectations - Report the **rationale** for each statistical procedure and analysis performed. - If raters are integral (e.g., some work samples), determine and document **rater reliability/agreement**. - Document **decision rules** used in preparing data (handling of missing data, outliers, inconsistencies across sources) and justify them. - For **transportability** support, include the relationship between the original validation sample and the population for which use is now proposed. ## Pitfalls - Reporting only significant/favorable results. - Reporting only corrected coefficients (always pair with uncorrected) or applying naive significance tests to corrected values. - Presenting concurrent results as if predictive. - Putting secure content (keys, live items) in the report. - Omitting power analysis, range-restriction notes, or the criterion's deficiency/contamination discussion. - Failing to document the search for less-adverse alternatives. ## Checklist - [ ] All 14 sections present (use `report-outline.md`) - [ ] Replicable: methods/analyses described in enough detail - [ ] Corrected **and** uncorrected results; power; range restriction noted - [ ] Criterion relevance/reliability/deficiency/contamination discussed - [ ] Sample representativeness, population, incumbent-vs-candidate status stated - [ ] Alternatives search documented - [ ] Secure content excluded; scoring documented enough for consistency - [ ] Data-handling decision rules justified - [ ] Misuse cautions and interpretation guidance included - [ ] References complete ## See also `administration-documentation` (the separate operational manual) · every evidence skill (`criterion-related-validation`, `content-based-validation`, `internal-structure-validation`, `generalizing-validity-evidence`) · `fairness-and-bias-analysis` · `selection-decisions-and-scoring` *Source: Principles (5th ed., 2018), "Operational Considerations → Technical Validation Report."* ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [OpenMatter-Network](https://github.com/OpenMatter-Network) - **Source:** [OpenMatter-Network/agent-io-skills](https://github.com/OpenMatter-Network/agent-io-skills) - **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-openmatter-network-agent-io-skills-technical-validation-report - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/openmatter-network - 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%.