Claude-skill-registry ground
Anchor claims to evidence from authoritative sources. Use when validating assertions, establishing provenance, verifying facts, or ensuring claims are supported by evidence.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/ground" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-ground-256466 && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/ground/SKILL.mdIntent
Verify that claims are supported by evidence from reliable sources. This is the foundation of the Grounded Agency principle - no assertion should be made without evidence anchors.
Success criteria:
- Claim evaluated against available evidence
- Evidence sources identified and referenced
- Grounding strength assessed (strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded)
- Evidence gaps explicitly documented
Compatible schemas:
schemas/output_schema.yaml
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | string | The claim or assertion to ground |
| No | array | Evidence sources to check (files, URLs, commands) |
| No | string | Minimum grounding level: weak, moderate, strong |
Procedure
-
Parse the claim: Understand what is being asserted
- Identify the core assertion
- Note any implicit sub-claims
- Determine what evidence would support it
-
Identify evidence sources: Determine where to look
- Use provided sources if available
- Identify additional relevant sources
- Prioritize authoritative sources
-
Search for evidence: Look for supporting or contradicting data
- Read relevant files and documentation
- Execute commands to gather data
- Note both supporting and contradicting evidence
-
Evaluate evidence quality: Assess reliability of found evidence
- Consider source authority
- Check for recency and relevance
- Note any bias or limitations
-
Assess grounding strength: Determine how well claim is supported
- Strong: multiple authoritative sources agree
- Moderate: one authoritative source or multiple secondary
- Weak: indirect or partial evidence
- Ungrounded: no supporting evidence found
-
Document gaps: Note missing evidence
- What evidence would strengthen grounding?
- What sources could not be checked?
- What assumptions remain unverified?
Output Contract
Return a structured object:
grounded: boolean # Whether claim meets required_strength claim: string # The claim being evaluated strength: string # strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded evidence: - source: string # Evidence source type: string # file, url, command, observation content: string # Relevant excerpt supports: boolean # Supports or contradicts claim authority: string # high, medium, low contradictions: - source: string content: string severity: string # How seriously it undermines claim gaps: - description: string # What evidence is missing would_provide: string # What it would establish confidence: 0..1 evidence_anchors: ["file:line", "url", "command:output"] assumptions: []
Field Definitions
| Field | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| boolean | Whether claim meets required evidence threshold |
| string | Grounding level: strong, moderate, weak, ungrounded |
| array | Supporting evidence with sources and excerpts |
| array | Evidence that contradicts the claim |
| array | Missing evidence that would strengthen grounding |
Examples
Example 1: Ground a Technical Claim
Input:
claim: "The payment processor uses Stripe API v2023-10-16" sources: - "Gemfile" - "config/initializers/stripe.rb" required_strength: "strong"
Output:
grounded: true claim: "The payment processor uses Stripe API v2023-10-16" strength: "strong" evidence: - source: "Gemfile" type: "file" content: "gem 'stripe', '~> 10.0'" supports: true authority: "high" - source: "config/initializers/stripe.rb" type: "file" content: "Stripe.api_version = '2023-10-16'" supports: true authority: "high" - source: "Gemfile.lock" type: "file" content: "stripe (10.1.0)" supports: true authority: "high" contradictions: [] gaps: - description: "Runtime verification of API version" would_provide: "Confirmation that configured version is actually used" confidence: 0.95 evidence_anchors: - "Gemfile:42" - "config/initializers/stripe.rb:3" - "Gemfile.lock:156" assumptions: - "Configuration is loaded at runtime" - "No environment-specific overrides"
Example 2: Partial Grounding
Input:
claim: "User authentication requires 2FA for all accounts" sources: - "app/models/user.rb" - "config/devise.yml" required_strength: "strong"
Output:
grounded: false claim: "User authentication requires 2FA for all accounts" strength: "weak" evidence: - source: "app/models/user.rb" type: "file" content: "has_one :two_factor_auth" supports: true authority: "medium" - source: "config/devise.yml" type: "file" content: "two_factor_authentication: enabled: true" supports: true authority: "high" contradictions: - source: "app/controllers/sessions_controller.rb" content: "skip_2fa_for_api_tokens: true" severity: "high" - source: "app/models/user.rb" content: "scope :without_2fa, -> { where(two_factor_enabled: false) }" severity: "medium" gaps: - description: "Policy enforcement mechanism" would_provide: "Evidence that 2FA is mandatory, not optional" - description: "Admin user configuration" would_provide: "Whether admin accounts have different requirements" confidence: 0.40 evidence_anchors: - "app/models/user.rb:15" - "config/devise.yml:8" - "app/controllers/sessions_controller.rb:23" assumptions: - "2FA support exists but enforcement unclear"
Example 3: Ungrounded Claim
Input:
claim: "The system processes 10,000 requests per second" sources: - "README.md" - "docs/architecture.md" required_strength: "moderate"
Output:
grounded: false claim: "The system processes 10,000 requests per second" strength: "ungrounded" evidence: - source: "README.md" type: "file" content: "High-performance API server" supports: false authority: "low" contradictions: [] gaps: - description: "Load test results" would_provide: "Measured throughput under load" - description: "Production metrics" would_provide: "Actual request rates and latencies" - description: "Benchmark documentation" would_provide: "Performance claims with methodology" confidence: 0.1 evidence_anchors: - "README.md:5" - "docs/architecture.md (no relevant content)" assumptions: - "No performance data available in provided sources"
Verification
- Claim is clearly stated
- At least one evidence source was checked
- Strength assessment is consistent with evidence
- Contradictions are noted if found
- Evidence anchors reference specific locations
Verification tools: Read (to verify evidence excerpts)
Safety Constraints
: falsemutation
: falserequires_checkpoint
: falserequires_approval
: lowrisk
Capability-specific rules:
- Never claim something is grounded without evidence
- Note contradicting evidence even if claim seems grounded
- Flag when sources may be outdated
- Do not fabricate evidence
Composition Patterns
Commonly follows:
- Ground generated contentgenerate
- Ground prediction assumptionspredict
- Ground explanation premisesexplain
Commonly precedes:
- Grounding enables verificationverify
- Grounding supports audit trailsaudit
- Only proceed with grounded informationplan
Anti-patterns:
- Never skip grounding for important assertions
- Avoid accepting claims without evidence in planning
Workflow references:
- See
for grounding in world modelsreference/workflow_catalog.yaml#world_model_build - Core principle of Grounded Agency - all skills should ground claims