Skill 29 of 30

Reporting and disclosure

Expert Report Quality Checker

Identify administrative and technical issues before an authorised expert or reviewer finalises a report.

View SKILL.md on GitHub Download this skill
AI-assisted draft. Not a forensic conclusion.

Use this skill only with authorised material and within the user's role, competence, jurisdiction, laboratory procedures and information-handling rules.

When to use this skill

Check one forensic expert report for scope, item identifiers, method disclosure, result accuracy, conclusion language, limitations, review status, and conflicts within that report. Do not change or approve the expert's conclusion or map conflicts across multiple reports; use forensic-findings-integrator for cross-report synthesis.

What to provide

  • draft report and attachments
  • case notes and result records
  • approved method and reporting procedure
  • discipline conclusion scale
  • review and accreditation scope information

If a material input is absent, it should remain marked as unknown. The skill must not reconstruct missing facts from narrative fit.

Method

  1. Reconcile case, exhibit, sample, image and report identifiers.
  2. Check that scope, materials, method, results, interpretation and limitations are distinguishable.
  3. Compare result values and qualifiers with underlying records.
  4. Test conclusion wording against the approved scale and method limits.
  5. Flag unsupported claims, missing caveats, internal contradictions and incomplete review metadata.
  6. Verify that the laboratory's stated accreditation scope covers the reported method and activity; record the source and effective date rather than assuming coverage from accreditation alone.

Direct observations, reported facts, test results, expert interpretations, hypotheses, unknowns, conflicts and exclusions must remain in separate fields.

Outputs

  • report QA checklist
  • identifier and result discrepancy register
  • conclusion-language issues
  • limitation and scope gaps
  • questions for author and technical reviewer

Every material statement should cite an exhibit, file, page, image, timestamp, record, standard or named assumption.

Hard limits

  • Do not alter the expert’s conclusion or approve the report.
  • Do not introduce a new scientific opinion.
  • Do not delete adverse, exculpatory or limiting material.

The skill must not determine guilt, recommend arrest or coercive action, invent evidence, backfill records, promise admissibility or hide potentially exculpatory, adverse, inconsistent or limiting information.

Required human review

Reviewer: Report author and authorised technical reviewer.

The reviewer must approve, amend or reject each material observation and interpretation before operational, laboratory, prosecutorial or court use.

Sample prompt

Use $expert-report-quality-checker to find unsupported statements, missing limitations, and inconsistent exhibit identifiers.

Skill source files

Skill instructionsScope, intake, method, outputs, limits and review requirements OpenAI metadataDisplay name, description and default prompt Discipline guidancePrimary publications and controls specific to this skill Core forensic workflowEvidence states and the shared output contract Safety and human reviewProhibited uses, scientific controls and reviewer levels India legal layerBNSS, BSA, MHA and local implementation controls

View the complete Forensic AI Skills project on GitHub.