# Retrieval Grounding Quality Review

> Review whether an agent retrieval and grounding system selects authorized, current, relevant evidence and produces claims that the evidence actually supports. Use for corpus authority, tenant filtering, retrieval metrics, citation support, abstention, poisoning, and injection; use source-grounded-research for a human research task and source-output-conformance-audit for deterministic source-to-output transformation.

- Skill: `jovanipink/retrieval-grounding-quality-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jovanipink/retrieval-grounding-quality-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jovanipink/retrieval-grounding-quality-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- License: MIT
- Author: JovaniPink (https://skillmd.com/u/jovanipink)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jovanipink/retrieval-grounding-quality-review

---


# Retrieval and Grounding Quality Review

Review both retrieval quality and whether generated claims remain within the evidence retrieved. Read [the retrieval evidence matrix](references/retrieval-evidence-matrix.md) when defining cases, metrics, or finding severity.

## Preconditions

Identify the intended users, tenants, questions, source authorities, corpus revision, ingestion path, retrieval configuration, model configuration, and decision the review must support. Do not use private records outside the authorized environment.

## Workflow

1. Map source ownership, licensing, authority, versions, effective time, ingestion, chunking, metadata, indexing, deletion, and refresh behavior.
2. Verify access control before retrieval. Test user, tenant, case, and document filters, including attempted cross-scope retrieval. Treat embeddings as sensitive derived data and evaluate whether inversion or reconstruction could expose source content.
3. Define representative, boundary, no-answer, conflicting-source, stale-source, adversarial, and known-failure queries. Pin the corpus and configuration.
4. Measure retrieval separately from generation. Assess relevant-source recall, irrelevant evidence, rank quality, coverage, freshness, latency, and missing-authority cases.
5. Map each material output claim to supporting evidence. Distinguish direct support, partial support, contradiction, unsupported inference, and missing evidence.
6. Review citation accuracy, source identity, units, dates, context, and whether a citation supports the nearby claim. Citation presence alone does not establish grounding.
7. Test prompt injection and retrieval poisoning in documents, metadata, tool results, and user content. Retrieved text remains untrusted data, not higher-priority instruction.
8. Define abstention, clarification, fallback, conflict disclosure, correction, and revocation behavior.
9. Measure whether retrieval changes intended product behavior, including correctness, relevance, safety, tone, and task usefulness. Record limitations, subgroup performance, cost, and what the cases cannot establish. Do not claim universal grounding from a sampled evaluation.

## Routing Boundaries

- Use `source-grounded-research` for a person asking a current research question with cited primary sources.
- Use `source-output-conformance-audit` for byte-to-field or source-to-stored-output transformation evidence.
- Use `context-reliability-review` for a supplied context packet after retrieval.
- Use `agent-evaluation-design` to create the broader system evaluation contract.

## Output

Return `Decision`, `Corpus authority`, `Access and isolation`, `Pinned configuration`, `Query set`, `Retrieval findings`, `Claim support findings`, `Citation findings`, `Poisoning and injection`, `Abstention and conflict behavior`, `Metrics`, `Limitations`, and `Required changes or tests`.