Batch Audit

Scenario

Audit a whole folder of received PDFs and spend human attention only on the problem files. First run evaluate_policy over everything to triage; deep-dive only reject / human_review_required — deep-diving everything wastes time and context.

Below is a real measurement from 2026-09-04 (pdf-verify-mcp v0.26.0; 5 specimens, producing all four verdicts).

Cast

Actor	Role
pdf-trust Skill	Batch orchestration, summary table, per-file sheets only for problems
pdf-verify	`evaluate_policy` over every file (deterministic = reproducible)

Sequence

Prompt examples

"Run an incoming audit on every PDF under /received/2026-08/. Invoices as financial"
"These 30 from partner A — here's their CA certificate. Judge them all"
"For the rejects only: what exactly is broken?"

Measured example — the 5-specimen summary

Specimen	Profile	Verdict
`selfmade-pades-crl.pdf` + `selfmade-ca2.pem`	general	`trust_and_use` (no rules fired; revocation `good`; structure B-LTA)
`kanpo-20260810-h01765-p1.pdf`	government	`use_with_caution`
`selfmade-pades-lta.pdf` + `selfmade-ca.pem`	general	`use_with_caution` (`POL-CAUTION-REVOCATION-UNKNOWN`; structure B-T)
`publish-demo-invoice.pdf` (unsigned)	contract	`human_review_required` (`POL-REVIEW-UNSIGNED-REQUIRED`)
`selfmade-tampered.pdf`	general	`reject` (`POL-REJECT-INVALID`; both Sig1 and the document timestamp `invalid`)

The CRL specimen stays untrusted with selfmade-ca.pem. trust_and_use needs selfmade-ca2.pem.

Only 2 of 5 files need a deep dive (review / reject). On reject, facts show both Sig1 and the document timestamp as invalid.

Call — evaluate_policy × 5

Specimens under docs/specimens/ (pass absolute paths). response_format: "json".

jsonc

// trust_and_use
{ "file_path": "…/selfmade-pades-crl.pdf", "profile": "general",
  "trust_anchors": ["…/selfmade-ca2.pem"], "response_format": "json" }

// use_with_caution (gazette)
{ "file_path": "…/kanpo-20260810-h01765-p1.pdf", "profile": "government", "response_format": "json" }

// use_with_caution (no CRL)
{ "file_path": "…/selfmade-pades-lta.pdf", "profile": "general",
  "trust_anchors": ["…/selfmade-ca.pem"], "response_format": "json" }

// human_review_required
{ "file_path": "…/publish-demo-invoice.pdf", "profile": "contract", "response_format": "json" }

// reject
{ "file_path": "…/selfmade-tampered.pdf", "profile": "general", "response_format": "json" }

Returned verdict values match the table. The same file and the same profile (and anchors) always yield the same verdict.

How to read the results

Same file + same profile = same verdict, always. Independent of the model and the day — reproducibility lives in the rule engine
Sort by the summary verdicts; attach per-file sheets only to problems (kinder to the reader too)
Profiles can vary per file type (invoices = financial, contracts = contract)
When everything clusters at use_with_caution, missing trust anchors are the usual cause — obtain the CA certificate once and the whole batch gains identity evaluation

Batch Audit ​

Scenario ​

Cast ​

Sequence ​

Prompt examples ​

Measured example — the 5-specimen summary ​

How to read the results ​