# Loan File Evidence Review

> Reviews attached mortgage documents when a user asks "what is missing", "summarize this loan file", or "show evidence for this review".

- Skill: `allura-ecosystem/loan-file-evidence-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add allura-ecosystem/loan-file-evidence-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/allura-ecosystem/loan-file-evidence-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: Allura-Ecosystem (https://skillmd.com/u/allura-ecosystem)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/allura-ecosystem/loan-file-evidence-review

---


# Loan-File Evidence Review

Use this skill to organize evidence in documents supplied in the current Cowork conversation.

## Safety boundary

- Extract and summarize; do not decide whether an applicant qualifies.
- State uncertainty when a document is unreadable, incomplete, inconsistent, or absent.
- Do not infer protected-class attributes, eligibility, creditworthiness, or a principal adverse-action reason.
- Do not send a condition request, notice, or update to any loan-origination system.

## Workflow

1. Inventory each supplied document by visible filename, stated type, and readable date.
2. Extract only facts supported by the supplied material. Cite provenance per `references/evidence-metadata.md` — never render a field that is unavailable.
3. Mark each fact as one of: `supported`, `ambiguous`, `missing`, `conflicting`, or `unidentified`.

   | Status | Use when |
   |---|---|
   | `supported` | The supplied material states the fact directly. |
   | `ambiguous` | The **document type is recognisable** but a needed attribute is absent, illegible, or undated. The document belongs in the file; something about it cannot be relied on. |
   | `missing` | An expected document or fact is **not present** in the supplied material. |
   | `conflicting` | Two or more supplied sources disagree. Cite every source; do not decide which is correct. |
   | `unidentified` | The **document type itself cannot be determined**. Report as unidentified rather than guessing. |

   `ambiguous` and `unidentified` are distinct and must not be used
   interchangeably. An undated but recognisable form is `ambiguous`. Content that
   cannot be placed as any document type is `unidentified`. When both could
   apply, ask which is unknown: the *attribute* (`ambiguous`) or the *document*
   (`unidentified`).
4. Compare the available evidence with the employee-provided document checklist. If no checklist is supplied, provide an evidence inventory only; do not invent lender policy.
5. Produce the review in this format:

| Evidence area | Supported fact | Source | Status | Follow-up for human reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|

6. End with a short boundary statement: this is an evidence summary for an authorized human reviewer, not an underwriting decision.

## Handoff

- Use `policy-replay-review` only when the employee supplies an approved policy version or deterministic replay output.
- Use `audit-packet-draft` when the employee requests a review record.

## Additional resource

- `references/safety-boundaries.md` — fixed authority and data-handling boundaries.
- `references/evidence-metadata.md` — provenance fields and rendering rules.