| name | evidence-package-creator |
| description | Create auditable evidence packages from tickets, pipeline results, test reports, approvals, scans, and architecture information. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| since | 2026-06-17 |
| last_modified | 2026-06-17 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | stable |
| min_platform_version | {"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"} |
| deprecated_since | null |
| replaces | null |
| supersedes | [] |
| changelog | [{"version":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Evidence Package Creator
Purpose
Create auditable evidence packages from tickets, pipeline results, test reports, approvals, scans, and architecture information. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- evidence packages decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects evidence packages artifacts such as ticket export, pipeline result, test report, approval, scan report, architecture reference.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as missing source link, unverifiable package, sensitive data exposure, incomplete scan context, unapproved change, timestamp mismatch.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.
Operating model
- Identify the relevant evidence packages artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as package manifest, checksum, redaction note, reviewer sign-off, retention location, source URL.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
Spec-Driven Change Context
- Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
- For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
- Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
- Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
- During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
- After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
- If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.
Skill-Specific Review Scope
- Primary artifacts: ticket export, pipeline result, test report, approval, scan report, architecture reference.
- Risk themes: missing source link, unverifiable package, sensitive data exposure, incomplete scan context, unapproved change, timestamp mismatch.
