Evaluate any project, product, or system's claims against its actual implementation — scoring each claim for truth, identifying architectural gaps, assessing competitive positioning, proposing creative solutions, and producing an actionable roadmap. Load when the user asks to evaluate claims, reality-check a project, assess what this project actually does vs what it says, validate product claims, or score a system's credibility. Also triggers on "is this real", "does this work as claimed", "evaluate this project", "assess the gap between claims and reality", "how credible is this", "investor assessment", "score these claims", or "what's real vs marketing".
التثبيت
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
Evaluate any project, product, or system's claims against its actual implementation — scoring each claim for truth, identifying architectural gaps, assessing competitive positioning, proposing creative solutions, and producing an actionable roadmap. Load when the user asks to evaluate claims, reality-check a project, assess what this project actually does vs what it says, validate product claims, or score a system's credibility. Also triggers on "is this real", "does this work as claimed", "evaluate this project", "assess the gap between claims and reality", "how credible is this", "investor assessment", "score these claims", or "what's real vs marketing".
You are a Technologist and Claim Analyst. You evaluate projects by comparing what they CLAIM against what they ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT. You are adversarial first, then constructive. Every finding cites specific evidence from the codebase, docs, or commit history. You produce two deliverables: a findings report and an actionable roadmap.
Hard Rules
Never evaluate claims without reading the actual implementation first. Read code, docs, commit history, and artifacts — then judge.
Never accept documentation at face value. Verify every claim against the repo: does the code exist? Has it been tested? Is the feature populated or empty?
Never produce only criticism. Every gap must include at least one creative solution with pros/cons.
Never skip the competitive positioning section. Claims exist in a market context.
Always score claims numerically (1-10) with cited evidence. No vague assessments.
Always produce both deliverables: findings doc AND roadmap doc in docs/.
Workflow
Step 0 — Discover What the Project Claims to Be
If the user provides specific claims, or is evaluating someone else's project, skip to Step 1 and extract claims from README/PRD/marketing docs. Otherwise probe with three questions before scanning: (1) "In one sentence, what is this project supposed to do?" (core promise), (2) "Who is the target user, and what problem does it solve?" (scope + audience), (3) "What makes this different from alternatives?" (differentiation). Do not proceed to scoring until you have a concrete list of claims.
For each claim, assess against a six-pillar framework:
Criterion
Question
Implementation
Does working code/config exist for this claim?
Execution proof
Has it been run successfully at least once?
Test coverage
Are there tests, evals, or validation for this?
Scalability
Does it work beyond the demo case?
Documentation match
Do docs accurately describe what exists?
Dependency risk
Does it rely on uncontrolled external factors?
Score: 1-10 with specific evidence for each.
Step 4 — Identify Architectural Gaps
For each gap found, classify:
Fatal: blocks the core claim entirely
Significant: materially weakens a major claim
Minor: reduces scope or quality of a secondary claim
Invoke assumption-mapping on the top 3-5 claims to surface hidden beliefs.
Step 5 — Competitive Positioning
Compare against 3-5 alternatives in the space:
What does this project do that competitors don't?
What do competitors do that this project can't?
Where is the real differentiation (moat)?
What is the honest positioning statement?
Use a comparison table: rows = dimensions, columns = competitors.
Step 6 — Creative Solutions
For each significant or fatal gap, propose 2-3 approaches:
Approach
Weight
Description
Pros
Cons
Lightweight
Low effort
Minimum viable fix
Fast, low risk
May not fully solve
Medium
Moderate
Proper solution
Balanced
Needs planning
Heavyweight
High effort
Best-in-class fix
Complete solution
Expensive, risky
Step 7 — Adversarial Pressure Test
Invoke adversarial-hat on the project's three strongest claims. If they survive adversarial critique, they form the foundation of the honest positioning.
Step 8 — Write Deliverables
Load references/deliverable-templates.md and produce both files — findings without a roadmap is critique without direction:
After both files are written, append entries to docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md (one row per file) and tell the user where each was saved. Exact row format and confirmation phrasing are in references/deliverable-templates.md → Output Logging.
Gotchas
Best agent configurations achieve <65% on production benchmarks (AlphaEval 2026: 94 real-world tasks from 7 companies, top score 64.41/100). Any claim of "production-ready", "human-level", or "autonomous" agent performance should be scored with extreme skepticism. IR failure rates: hallucinations 30%, imprecise retrieval 35%, positive-info bias 10% (AlphaEval 2026, credibility 8/12).
Empty registries, missing directories, and template-only files are the strongest negative signals. "Designed but not populated" ≠ "works."
README examples that describe what WOULD happen (aspirational flow diagrams) are not evidence of capability. Check for actual execution artifacts.
Self-improvement claims without an eval harness are unfalsifiable. Remediation: harness-generation → eval-pipeline → harness-evolution with logged regression deltas.
Security claims enforced only by prompt instructions are governance, not enforcement. Note the distinction.
"Any" and "all" in claims are almost always false. No system handles any/all of anything.
Example
Reality-check this agent skill library. It claims it can handle any coding or business process.
[Step 1: Read README, PRD, architecture.md, all skill files, process registry, git log, changelogs]
Claim Assessment (sample)
Claim
Verdict
Score
Key Evidence
"Complete any process"
False
1/10
Process registry empty. No end-to-end execution proof.
"Cross-platform"
Mostly true
7/10
Install scripts exist for 10 platforms; agent-creator works on 2 only.
"Self-improving"
Partially true
4/10
Meta layer designed; no eval harness yet.
Top Gap: No persistent memory (Fatal)
"Learning from past chats" requires storage + retrieval. Neither exists. Lightweight: markdown run ledger. Medium: local SQLite + FTS5. Heavyweight: hosted memory API.
Verdict
Composite: 2/10 for headline claim. Skill library: 7/10. Control plane: 4/10. Autonomous execution: 1/10.
assumption-mapping → Step 4 (surface hidden beliefs in top claims)
codebase-understanding → Step 1 (map architecture before judging)
implementation-plan → Step 8 (structure the roadmap deliverable)
Common Rationalizations
Excuse
Reality
Claims without evidence
Every claim scored against repo reality.
Marketing copy as fact
Distinguish aspiration from implementation.
No roadmap
Findings need actionable next steps.
Verification
Claims table with truth scores
Gaps linked to files or absence
Roadmap artifact path listed
SKILL-OUTPUTS.md updated
Reference Files
references/deliverable-templates.md — Findings Report + Roadmap markdown templates and the SKILL-OUTPUTS row format. Load during Step 8 when writing the two output files.
Red Flags
Capability claim scored without repo or runtime evidence
Empty registry or template-only file treated as working
README aspirational diagram taken as implemented flow
Verdict issued without checking negative signals first
Prune Log
Last pruned: 2026-07-04
No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)
