skills/diagnosing-superpowers/prompts/quality-evidence.md

Read `prompts/analyst-common.md` first; it gives your role, inputs,
context-safety rules, and the return format. This file adds the dimension.

Dimension: Quality evidence

Judge the process against its own claims. This is not a code review; do
not evaluate the code the session produced.

1. Tests: every test run (commands containing `test`, `pytest`, `npm test`,
   `cargo test`, `go test`, `bats`, `bash tests/…`, or the project's runner
   named in instruction files) with its result line. Report runs that
   failed and what the assistant did next.
2. Verification behind claims: find assistant text claiming done, fixed,
   passing, verified, works, complete. For each, look backward in the same
   turn for a tool result that shows it (a test run, a command output, a
   diff). Report claims with no supporting result in that turn.
3. Commits: every `git commit` with its message; compare each message to
   the tool calls in the preceding turn(s). Report commits whose message
   claims work that no tool call performed, and work performed that was
   never committed when the agreed plan said it would be.
4. Review feedback: where a reviewer (human or subagent) raised points,
   find the response. Report points acknowledged but not acted on, and
   points dismissed without a stated reason.
5. Acceptance criteria: if the case file's problem statement or the
   agreed plan states criteria, report each as met / not met /
   not checked with the evidence line.