$ loading_
核查回答是否有文档依据，帮助发现未被资料支持的内容与引用问题。
复制安装指令，让 AI 自动完成配置 · 推荐新手
请帮我安装 askskill 上的 "docs-grounding-verifier" 技能： 1. 下载 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/apm/main/.apm/skills/docs-grounding-verifier/SKILL.md 2. 保存为 ~/.claude/skills/docs-grounding-verifier/SKILL.md 3. 装好后重载技能，告诉我可以用了
请根据我提供的产品帮助文档，核查这段客服回复中的每一项说法是否有明确依据；逐条标注“有依据/无依据/部分依据”，并引用对应文档段落。
一份逐条核验结果，说明哪些表述被文档支持、哪些存在依据不足，并附引用位置。
下面是会议纪要和一版总结报告。请检查报告中的结论、数字和行动项是否都能在纪要中找到依据，并列出不准确或推断过度的内容。
一份对照审查清单，指出报告中可验证内容、缺失依据内容和需要改写的句子。
给定检索到的文档片段和模型最终回答，请评估回答是否严格基于检索内容；找出幻觉、遗漏的关键证据，以及引用不匹配的地方。
一份 grounding 评估结果，包含风险点、证据覆盖情况和改进建议。
CLAIM-LEVEL grounding verification. Adapts the RAGAS faithfulness-eval pattern (proven in RAG literature) to docs/code instead of generated- answers/retrieved-context. Source code is the ground truth; docs paragraphs are the candidate text under audit.
python-architect persona doc-writer persona
This skill is a SIBLING of docs-corpus-audit and docs-sync. The
boundary is load-bearing:
| Skill | Trigger | Scope | Granularity |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs-sync |
| PR opened/synchronized |
| PR diff only |
| Page-level |
| docs-corpus-audit | Maintainer asks for whole-corpus pass | Entire corpus | Page-level |
| docs-grounding-verifier | Verify specific pages factually | 1..N pages | CLAIM-level |
docs-corpus-audit invokes this skill in its VERIFY phase on the
highest-risk pages of each wave. docs-sync can invoke it on the
specific pages in a PR diff. The skill is also runnable standalone.
docs-corpus-audit.docs-sync.editorial-owner persona directly.PARENT
-> [Stage 1: EXTRACT claims, fan-out PANEL]
per page -> LLM extracts atomic factual claims as JSON
script: scripts/extract-claims.py
-> [Stage 2: RETRIEVE evidence, deterministic S7]
per claim -> grep over src/ via keywords + hints
script: scripts/retrieve-evidence.sh (NO LLM)
-> [Stage 3: JUDGE grounding, adversarial A7]
per (claim, evidence) -> LLM rules GROUNDED|PARTIAL|CONTRADICTED|UNSUPPORTED
asset: assets/judge-prompt.md
-> [Stage 4: SYNTHESIZE]
aggregate ungrounded -> doc-writer for fix
re-verify after fix (A8 ALIGNMENT LOOP)
Stage 2 is the load-bearing design choice: evidence retrieval is DETERMINISTIC (grep + AST hints), not LLM. The judge in Stage 3 can only rule on evidence it actually receives -- it cannot hallucinate support that the retriever did not find. This is the structural guard against the failure mode "the LLM convinces itself the docs match the code."
Input: list of page paths to verify (1..N). If a risk_class is
attached (e.g. "high-stakes"), prefer it; otherwise treat all as equal.
Out-of-scope:
docs/src/content/docs/ or…
优化 APM 代码库中的 CLI 输出、日志提示与诊断信息体验
为 Claude Code 会话提供系统化校验流程，帮助检查结果正确性与质量。