skills/25-HosungYou-Diverga/skills/e1/SKILL.md
E1-Quantitative Analysis Guide with Code Generation & Sensitivity Analysis VS-Enhanced with Full 5-Phase process: Avoids obvious analyses, explores innovative methodologies Expanded to include qualitative analysis (thematic, grounded theory, content, narrative) Absorbed E4 (Analysis Code Generator) and E5 (Sensitivity Analysis - Primary Study) capabilities Use when: selecting statistical/qualitative methods, interpreting results, checking assumptions, generating code, sensitivity analysis Triggers: statistical analysis, ANOVA, regression, t-test, power analysis, assumption checking, effect size, thematic analysis, grounded theory, content analysis, narrative analysis, NVivo, ATLAS.ti, coding, qualitative data, R code, Python code, SPSS syntax, sensitivity analysis, robustness check
npx skillsauth add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research e1Install this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
diverga_check_prerequisites("e1") → must return approved: true
If not approved → AskUserQuestion for each missing checkpoint (see .claude/references/checkpoint-templates.md)
diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_ANALYSIS_PLAN", decision, rationale)Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.
Agent ID: E1 (formerly 10) Category: E - Publication & Communication (Analysis Methods) VS Level: Full (5-Phase) Tier: Flagship Icon: 📈📊
Comprehensive guide for both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods appropriate for research design and data characteristics. Applies VS-Research methodology to avoid monotonous analyses like "recommend t-test" or "just do thematic analysis," presenting methodological diversity optimized for research questions across paradigms.
Must collect before VS application:
Required Context:
- research_question: "Relationship/difference to analyze"
- independent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
- dependent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
- design: "Independent/Repeated/Mixed"
Optional Context:
- control_variables: "Covariate list"
- sample_size: "Current or expected N"
- target_journal: "Target journal level"
Purpose: Explicitly identify the most predictable "obvious" analysis methods
## Phase 1: Modal Analysis Method Identification
⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are the most commonly used analyses for this design:
| Modal Method | T-Score | Usage Rate | Limitation |
|--------------|---------|------------|------------|
| [Method1] | 0.92 | 60%+ | [Limitation] |
| [Method2] | 0.88 | 25%+ | [Limitation] |
➡️ Confirming if this is optimal and exploring more suitable alternatives.
Purpose: Present alternatives at 3 levels based on T-Score
## Phase 2: Long-Tail Analysis Method Sampling
**Direction A** (T ≈ 0.7): Standard but enhanced analysis
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Familiar to reviewers, slight improvements
- Suitable for: Conservative journals
**Direction B** (T ≈ 0.45): Modern alternatives
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Methodological contribution, more accurate inference
- Suitable for: Methodology-oriented journals
**Direction C** (T < 0.3): Innovative approaches
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Latest methodology, high differentiation
- Suitable for: Top-tier journals
Purpose: Select method most appropriate for research question and data
Selection Criteria:
Purpose: Provide specific guidance for selected analysis method
## Phase 4: Analysis Execution Guide
### Primary Analysis Method
[Specific guidance]
### Assumption Checks
[Procedures and code]
### Effect Size
[Calculation and interpretation]
Purpose: Confirm final selection is optimal for research
## Phase 5: Suitability Verification
✅ Modal Avoidance Check:
- [ ] "Was basic t-test/ANOVA sufficient?" → Review complete
- [ ] "Are there more suitable modern alternatives?" → Review complete
- [ ] "Is methodological contribution possible?" → Confirmed
✅ Quality Check:
- [ ] Statistical assumptions satisfied? → YES
- [ ] Accurately answers research question? → YES
- [ ] Defensible in peer review? → YES
T > 0.8 (Modal - Explore Alternatives):
├── Independent t-test
├── One-way ANOVA
├── OLS Regression (simple)
├── Pearson correlation
└── Chi-square test
T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Situational):
├── Factorial ANOVA
├── ANCOVA
├── Multiple regression
├── Hierarchical regression
├── Repeated measures ANOVA
├── Mixed ANOVA
└── Traditional Meta-analysis
T 0.3-0.5 (Modern - Recommended):
├── Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM/MLM)
├── Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
├── Latent Growth Modeling
├── Bayesian regression
├── Mixed-effects models
├── Meta-Analytic SEM (MASEM)
├── Propensity Score Matching
└── Robust methods (bootstrapping)
T < 0.3 (Innovative - For Top-tier):
├── Bayesian methods (full)
├── Causal inference (IV, RDD, DiD)
├── Machine Learning + inference (SHAP, causal forests)
├── Network analysis
├── Computational modeling
└── Novel hybrid methods (Double ML, Targeted learning)
T > 0.8 (Modal - Explore Alternatives):
├── Generic thematic analysis
├── Basic content analysis
├── Descriptive coding
└── Simple categorization
T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Situational):
├── Braun & Clarke thematic analysis (6-phase)
├── Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin)
├── Directed content analysis
├── Narrative analysis (thematic)
├── Framework analysis
└── Template analysis
T 0.3-0.5 (Modern - Recommended):
├── Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
├── Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz)
├── Structural narrative analysis
├── Discourse analysis
├── Reflexive thematic analysis
└── Abductive analysis
T < 0.3 (Innovative - For Top-tier):
├── Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
├── Foucauldian discourse analysis
├── Situational analysis (Clarke)
├── Dialogic/performance narrative analysis
├── Computational text analysis + qualitative interpretation
├── Visual discourse analysis
└── Multimodal analysis
Required:
- research_question: "Relationship/difference to analyze"
- independent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
- dependent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
Optional:
- control_variables: "Covariate list"
- design: "Independent/Repeated/Mixed"
- sample_size: "Current or expected N"
- target_journal: "Target journal level"
Required:
- research_question: "Phenomenon/experience to explore"
- data_type: "Interviews/Focus groups/Documents/Visual/Observational"
- sample_size: "N participants or texts"
Optional:
- paradigm: "Interpretive/Critical/Constructivist/Positivist"
- prior_theory: "Deductive approach with existing framework?"
- software_preference: "NVivo/ATLAS.ti/MAXQDA/Manual"
- team_coding: "Multiple coders? Y/N"
## Statistical Analysis Guide (VS-Enhanced)
---
### Phase 1: Modal Analysis Method Identification
⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are most commonly recommended analyses for this design:
| Modal Method | T-Score | Limitation in This Study |
|--------------|---------|--------------------------|
| [Method1] | 0.92 | [Specific limitation] |
| [Method2] | 0.88 | [Specific limitation] |
➡️ Confirming if this is optimal and exploring more suitable alternatives.
---
### Phase 2: Long-Tail Analysis Method Sampling
**Direction A** (T = 0.72): [Standard Enhanced Method]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]
**Direction B** (T = 0.48): [Modern Alternative]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]
**Direction C** (T = 0.28): [Innovative Approach]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]
---
### Phase 3: Low-Typicality Selection
**Selection**: Direction [B] - [Method name] (T = [X.X])
**Selection Rationale**:
1. [Rationale 1 - Statistical fit]
2. [Rationale 2 - Research question alignment]
3. [Rationale 3 - Feasibility]
---
### Phase 4: Analysis Execution Guide
#### 1. Analysis Overview
| Item | Content |
|------|---------|
| Research Question | [Question] |
| Independent Variable | [Variable name] (Type: [Continuous/Categorical], Levels: [N]) |
| Dependent Variable | [Variable name] (Type: [Continuous/Categorical]) |
| Control Variables | [Variable name] |
| Design | [Independent/Repeated/Mixed] |
#### 2. Recommended Analysis Method
**Primary Analysis**: [Method name]
**Selection Rationale**:
- [Rationale 1]
- [Rationale 2]
**Alternative** (if assumptions violated): [Alternative method]
#### 3. Assumption Check Procedures
##### Normality
- **Test**: Shapiro-Wilk (N < 50) / K-S (N ≥ 50)
- **Visualization**: Q-Q plot, histogram
```r
# R code
shapiro.test(data$DV)
qqnorm(data$DV); qqline(data$DV)
library(car)
leveneTest(DV ~ Group, data = data)
| Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Expected effect size | [d = / η² = / f² = ] | | Significance level (α) | .05 | | Power (1-β) | .80 | | Required sample size | N = [calculated value] |
# G*Power or R pwr package
library(pwr)
pwr.t.test(d = 0.5, sig.level = 0.05, power = 0.80, type = "two.sample")
# R code - Primary analysis
library(tidyverse)
library(effectsize)
# 1. Load data
data <- read_csv("data.csv")
# 2. Descriptive statistics
data %>%
group_by(Group) %>%
summarise(
n = n(),
mean = mean(DV),
sd = sd(DV)
)
# 3. Primary analysis
model <- [analysis function]
# 4. Effect size
[effect size calculation code]
# Python code (alternative)
import pandas as pd
import scipy.stats as stats
import pingouin as pg
# [Same analysis in Python]
| Effect Size | Value | Interpretation (Cohen's criteria) | Practical Meaning | |-------------|-------|-----------------------------------|-------------------| | [Metric] | [Value] | [Small/Medium/Large] | [Interpretation] |
Interpretation Criteria (Cohen, 1988): | Metric | Small | Medium | Large | |--------|-------|--------|-------| | d | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | | η² | .01 | .06 | .14 | | r | .10 | .30 | .50 | | f² | .02 | .15 | .35 |
Correction Method: [Bonferroni / Tukey / FDR]
# R code - Multiple comparison correction
p.adjust(p_values, method = "BH") # Benjamini-Hochberg FDR
[Analysis method] results showed [statistic] was statistically significant[/not significant],
[statistic = X.XX, p = .XXX, effect size = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]].
Example (selected analysis): "[Method name] results showed that [variable]'s effect on [variable] was statistically significant, [statistic], [effect size], 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]."
✅ Modal Avoidance Check:
✅ Quality Assurance:
---
## Qualitative Analysis Methods (NEW in v5.0)
### Thematic Analysis
**Approach**: Braun & Clarke 6-Phase Framework
```yaml
thematic_analysis:
phases:
phase_1_familiarization:
activities:
- "Read and re-read data"
- "Note initial ideas"
- "Immerse in content"
output: "Familiarization notes"
phase_2_coding:
activities:
- "Generate initial codes systematically"
- "Code interesting features"
- "Collate data relevant to each code"
output: "Coded data extracts"
tools: ["NVivo", "ATLAS.ti", "MAXQDA", "Dedoose"]
phase_3_searching_themes:
activities:
- "Collate codes into potential themes"
- "Gather data relevant to each theme"
output: "List of candidate themes"
phase_4_reviewing_themes:
activities:
- "Check themes work with coded extracts"
- "Generate thematic map"
output: "Refined themes and thematic map"
phase_5_defining_naming:
activities:
- "Define and refine each theme"
- "Generate clear definitions"
- "Name themes"
output: "Theme definitions and names"
phase_6_writing:
activities:
- "Final analysis"
- "Select vivid extracts"
- "Relate to research question and literature"
output: "Scholarly report"
quality_criteria:
- "Theoretical coherence"
- "Richness of interpretation"
- "Member checking (optional)"
- "Audit trail"
software_comparison:
nvivo:
strengths: ["Rich visualization", "Matrix coding", "Framework matrices"]
best_for: "Large qualitative datasets"
atlas_ti:
strengths: ["Hermeneutic unit", "Network views", "Query tools"]
best_for: "Grounded theory and complex theory building"
maxqda:
strengths: ["Mixed methods", "Visual tools", "TeamCloud"]
best_for: "Mixed methods research"
dedoose:
strengths: ["Web-based", "Collaboration", "Mixed methods"]
best_for: "Team-based coding"
grounded_theory_analysis:
approaches:
strauss_corbin:
paradigm_model:
- "Causal conditions"
- "Phenomenon"
- "Context"
- "Intervening conditions"
- "Action/interaction strategies"
- "Consequences"
coding_process: "Systematic and structured"
charmaz_constructivist:
focus: "Social construction of meaning"
coding_process: "Flexible and emergent"
emphasis: "Researcher reflexivity"
glaser_classic:
focus: "Theory emergence from data"
coding_process: "Minimally structured"
emphasis: "Theoretical sensitivity"
coding_types:
open_coding:
purpose: "Breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing data"
output: "Concepts and categories"
techniques:
- "Line-by-line coding"
- "Incident-by-incident coding"
- "Constant comparison"
axial_coding:
purpose: "Relating categories to subcategories"
output: "Paradigm model relationships"
techniques:
- "Linking categories"
- "Identifying conditions-actions-consequences"
selective_coding:
purpose: "Integrating and refining theory"
output: "Core category and theoretical framework"
techniques:
- "Storyline development"
- "Theory integration"
memo_writing:
purpose: "Develop theoretical sensitivity and capture analytic thinking"
types:
- "Code notes (what code means)"
- "Theoretical notes (conceptual thinking)"
- "Operational notes (procedures)"
frequency: "Continuous throughout coding"
theoretical_saturation:
definition: "No new themes/categories emerging from data"
indicators:
- "New data fits existing categories"
- "Categories well-developed"
- "Relationships between categories clear"
content_analysis:
approaches:
deductive:
process: "Theory-driven coding scheme applied to data"
use_when: "Testing existing theory or frameworks"
steps:
- "Develop coding scheme from theory"
- "Define categories and rules"
- "Train coders"
- "Code data"
- "Calculate reliability"
inductive:
process: "Coding scheme emerges from data"
use_when: "Exploratory research"
steps:
- "Immerse in data"
- "Identify patterns"
- "Create categories"
- "Define coding rules"
- "Code data"
directed:
process: "Hybrid - start with theory, allow emergence"
use_when: "Extending existing theory"
units_of_analysis:
analysis_unit:
definition: "What to count (theme, word, paragraph, entire text)"
examples: ["Sentence", "Paragraph", "Entire article", "Tweet"]
coding_unit:
definition: "Smallest element counted"
examples: ["Word", "Phrase", "Sentence"]
context_unit:
definition: "Boundary for interpreting coding unit"
examples: ["Paragraph surrounding sentence", "Entire article"]
reliability_measures:
krippendorff_alpha:
use: "Multiple coders, any level of measurement"
interpretation:
- "α ≥ 0.80: Acceptable"
- "α ≥ 0.67: Tentatively acceptable (exploratory)"
formula: "1 - (Observed disagreement / Expected disagreement)"
cohen_kappa:
use: "Two coders, nominal/ordinal data"
interpretation:
- "κ < 0.40: Poor"
- "κ 0.40-0.59: Fair"
- "κ 0.60-0.74: Good"
- "κ ≥ 0.75: Excellent"
percent_agreement:
use: "Simple reliability estimate (not recommended alone)"
interpretation: "≥ 80% often used, but doesn't account for chance"
narrative_analysis:
approaches:
structural:
focus: "Organization and structure of narratives"
frameworks:
- "Labov's narrative structure (abstract, orientation, complication, evaluation, resolution, coda)"
- "Burke's dramatistic pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose)"
analysis_focus: "How story is told"
thematic:
focus: "What is told (content)"
approach: "Identify themes across narratives"
similarity_to: "Thematic analysis of narrative data"
dialogic_performance:
focus: "Interactive context of storytelling"
emphasis:
- "Who tells to whom"
- "When and why"
- "Co-construction of narrative"
visual_narrative:
focus: "Visual storytelling (photos, videos, drawings)"
methods:
- "Visual discourse analysis"
- "Multimodal analysis"
analytical_elements:
plot:
definition: "Sequence of events and how connected"
questions:
- "What is the main storyline?"
- "How are events causally linked?"
temporality:
definition: "How time is constructed in narrative"
aspects:
- "Chronology vs. flashbacks"
- "Duration and frequency"
- "Temporal markers"
character:
definition: "Roles and development of actors"
analysis:
- "Protagonist/antagonist"
- "Character agency"
- "Transformation over time"
setting:
definition: "Physical, temporal, social context"
importance: "How setting shapes narrative"
bayesian_analysis:
core_concept: "Update beliefs with data using Bayes' theorem"
packages:
r_packages:
brms:
description: "Bayesian Regression Models using Stan"
strengths: ["Flexible syntax", "Multilevel models", "Great documentation"]
example: |
library(brms)
fit <- brm(y ~ x + (1|group), data = data,
family = gaussian(),
prior = c(prior(normal(0, 10), class = b)))
rstanarm:
description: "Applied Regression Modeling via Stan"
strengths: ["Easy syntax", "Pre-compiled models", "Fast"]
python_packages:
pymc:
description: "Probabilistic programming in Python"
strengths: ["Flexible", "Large community", "Integration with ArviZ"]
example: |
import pymc as pm
with pm.Model() as model:
beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=10)
sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
y_obs = pm.Normal('y_obs', mu=beta*x, sigma=sigma, observed=y)
trace = pm.sample(2000)
use_cases:
prior_incorporation:
description: "Incorporate existing knowledge as priors"
example: "Meta-analysis results as priors for new study"
small_samples:
description: "Better uncertainty quantification with limited data"
advantage: "Regularization prevents overfitting"
complex_hierarchical:
description: "Natural fit for multilevel/hierarchical models"
advantage: "Partial pooling and shrinkage"
advantages:
- "Quantifies uncertainty via posterior distributions"
- "Incorporates prior knowledge formally"
- "No p-values or significance testing"
- "Intuitive probability statements (e.g., '95% probability effect > 0')"
reporting:
elements:
- "Prior specification and justification"
- "Posterior distributions (median, 95% credible intervals)"
- "Convergence diagnostics (Rhat, ESS)"
- "Posterior predictive checks"
machine_learning:
paradigm_shift: "Prediction-focused, but can support causal inference"
techniques:
random_forest:
use_for: "Variable importance, non-linear relationships"
interpretation: ["Feature importance via Gini/permutation", "Partial dependence plots"]
packages: ["randomForest (R)", "scikit-learn (Python)"]
support_vector_machines:
use_for: "Classification with complex boundaries"
kernels: ["Linear", "Polynomial", "RBF"]
packages: ["e1071 (R)", "scikit-learn (Python)"]
neural_networks:
use_for: "Complex non-linear patterns, image/text data"
architectures: ["Feedforward", "CNN", "RNN/LSTM"]
packages: ["keras/tensorflow", "pytorch"]
gradient_boosting:
use_for: "High-performance prediction, structured data"
implementations: ["XGBoost", "LightGBM", "CatBoost"]
advantage: "State-of-the-art performance on tabular data"
validation_strategies:
cross_validation:
k_fold:
description: "Split data into k folds, rotate train/test"
typical_k: "5 or 10"
stratified:
description: "Preserve class proportions in each fold"
use_when: "Imbalanced outcome variable"
leave_one_out:
description: "Use n-1 observations to predict 1"
use_when: "Very small sample sizes"
holdout:
description: "Single train/test split (e.g., 80/20)"
use_when: "Large datasets"
bootstrap:
description: "Resample with replacement"
use_for: "Uncertainty estimation, small samples"
interpretation_tools:
shap_values:
description: "Shapley Additive Explanations"
advantage: "Game-theoretic, consistent feature attribution"
packages: ["shap (Python)", "fastshap (R)"]
use: "Explain individual predictions and global patterns"
feature_importance:
methods:
- "Permutation importance (model-agnostic)"
- "Gini importance (tree-based)"
- "Coefficient magnitude (linear models)"
partial_dependence:
description: "Marginal effect of feature on prediction"
packages: ["pdp (R/Python)", "iml (R)"]
lime:
description: "Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations"
use: "Explain individual predictions via local linear approximation"
causal_ml:
double_machine_learning:
description: "Use ML for nuisance parameters, preserve inference"
packages: ["DoubleML (Python/R)"]
causal_forests:
description: "Estimate heterogeneous treatment effects"
packages: ["grf (R)", "EconML (Python)"]
targeted_learning:
description: "Efficient estimation of causal parameters"
packages: ["tmle (R)", "tmle3 (R)"]
Research Paradigm?
│
├── Quantitative
│ │
│ └── Dependent Variable Type?
│ │
│ ├── Continuous
│ │ │
│ │ └── Independent Variable Type?
│ │ │
│ │ ├── Categorical (2 levels)
│ │ │ ├── T > 0.8: t-test (modal)
│ │ │ ├── T ≈ 0.6: Welch's t-test / Bayesian t-test
│ │ │ ├── T ≈ 0.4: Mixed-effects / Bootstrap
│ │ │ └── T < 0.3: ML classification + SHAP
│ │ │
│ │ ├── Categorical (3+ levels)
│ │ │ ├── T > 0.8: ANOVA (modal)
│ │ │ ├── T ≈ 0.6: Welch ANOVA / Bayesian ANOVA
│ │ │ ├── T ≈ 0.4: Mixed-effects / HLM
│ │ │ └── T < 0.3: Random forests + variable importance
│ │ │
│ │ └── Continuous
│ │ ├── T > 0.8: OLS Regression (modal)
│ │ ├── T ≈ 0.6: Robust / Bayesian regression
│ │ ├── T ≈ 0.4: SEM / Causal inference (PSM, IV)
│ │ └── T < 0.3: Causal forests / Double ML
│ │
│ └── Categorical
│ │
│ └── T > 0.8: Chi-square/Logistic (modal)
│ T ≈ 0.5: Multinomial/Ordinal logistic
│ T < 0.3: Bayesian logistic / Neural networks
│
└── Qualitative
│
├── Interpretive Goal?
│ │
│ ├── Describe experiences/meanings
│ │ ├── T > 0.8: Basic thematic analysis (modal)
│ │ ├── T ≈ 0.5: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
│ │ └── T < 0.3: Hermeneutic phenomenology
│ │
│ ├── Build theory
│ │ ├── T > 0.8: Generic grounded theory (modal)
│ │ ├── T ≈ 0.5: Charmaz constructivist GT
│ │ └── T < 0.3: Situational analysis / Critical GT
│ │
│ ├── Analyze narratives/stories
│ │ ├── T > 0.8: Thematic narrative analysis (modal)
│ │ ├── T ≈ 0.5: Structural narrative analysis
│ │ └── T < 0.3: Dialogic/performance analysis
│ │
│ └── Count/quantify content
│ ├── T > 0.8: Descriptive content analysis (modal)
│ ├── T ≈ 0.5: Directed content analysis
│ └── T < 0.3: Computational text analysis + ML
## Qualitative Analysis Guide
### Research Context
| Element | Details |
|---------|---------|
| Research Question | {Question} |
| Data Type | {Interviews / Focus groups / Documents / Visual} |
| Sample Size | {N participants / texts} |
| Paradigm | {Interpretive / Critical / Constructivist} |
---
### Recommended Analysis Method
**Primary Method**: {Thematic Analysis / Grounded Theory / Content Analysis / Narrative Analysis}
**Selection Rationale**:
- {Fit with research question}
- {Paradigmatic alignment}
- {Data characteristics}
**Software Recommendation**: {NVivo / ATLAS.ti / MAXQDA / Dedoose / Manual}
- **Rationale**: {Why this software}
---
### Analysis Process
#### Phase 1: {Phase name}
**Activities**:
1. {Activity 1}
2. {Activity 2}
**Output**: {Expected output}
**Quality Check**:
- [ ] {Quality criterion 1}
- [ ] {Quality criterion 2}
#### Phase 2: {Phase name}
[Repeat for all phases]
---
### Coding Framework
#### Initial Coding Scheme (if deductive)
| Code | Definition | Inclusion Criteria | Example |
|------|------------|-------------------|---------|
| {Code 1} | {Definition} | {When to apply} | {Quote example} |
| {Code 2} | {Definition} | {When to apply} | {Quote example} |
#### Coding Process
**Approach**: {Inductive / Deductive / Abductive}
**Coder Training** (if multiple coders):
- Training materials: {Description}
- Practice rounds: {N rounds}
- Disagreement resolution: {Process}
**Inter-coder Reliability Target**:
- Measure: {Krippendorff's α / Cohen's κ / % agreement}
- Target: {≥ 0.80 / ≥ 0.70}
---
### Trustworthiness Criteria
| Criterion | Strategy | Implementation |
|-----------|----------|----------------|
| Credibility | {Member checking / Prolonged engagement} | {Specific plan} |
| Transferability | {Thick description} | {Specific plan} |
| Dependability | {Audit trail / Reflexive journal} | {Specific plan} |
| Confirmability | {Reflexivity / External audit} | {Specific plan} |
---
### Results Reporting
#### Theme Structure
**Theme 1**: "{Theme name}"
- **Definition**: {What this theme represents}
- **Sub-themes**: {If applicable}
- **Illustrative quotes**:
- "{Quote 1}" (Participant X)
- "{Quote 2}" (Participant Y)
#### Thematic Map
[Visual representation of theme relationships]
#### Narrative Account
[How themes relate to research question, existing theory, and broader context]
---
### Quality Assurance Checklist
- [ ] Analysis process clearly documented
- [ ] Coding scheme defined and applied consistently
- [ ] Inter-coder reliability assessed (if multiple coders)
- [ ] Audit trail maintained
- [ ] Reflexivity addressed
- [ ] Sufficient data extracts provided
- [ ] Interpretation goes beyond description
This self-evaluation section must be included in all outputs.
---
## 🔍 Self-Critique
### Strengths
Advantages of this statistical analysis recommendation:
- [ ] {Fit with research question}
- [ ] {Statistical assumption satisfaction}
- [ ] {Power adequacy}
### Weaknesses
Potential limitations:
- [ ] {Causation vs correlation confusion risk}: {Mitigation approach}
- [ ] {Context-dependency of effect size interpretation}: {Mitigation approach}
- [ ] {Multiple comparison issues}: {Mitigation approach}
### Alternative Perspectives
Pros and cons of alternative methodologies:
- **Alternative 1**: "{Alternative method}"
- **Advantages**: "{Advantages}"
- **Reason not selected**: "{Reason}"
- **Alternative 2**: "{Alternative method}"
- **Advantages**: "{Advantages}"
- **Reason not selected**: "{Reason}"
### Improvement Suggestions
Suggestions for analysis improvement:
1. {Additional analysis recommendations}
2. {Robustness verification methods}
### Confidence Assessment
| Area | Confidence | Rationale |
|------|------------|-----------|
| Method selection appropriateness | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Assumption satisfaction | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Results interpretation accuracy | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
**Overall Confidence**: {Score}/100
---
This agent has FULL upgrade level, utilizing all 5 creativity mechanisms:
| Mechanism | Application Timing | Usage Example | |-----------|-------------------|---------------| | Forced Analogy | Phase 2 | Apply analysis methodology patterns from other fields by analogy (e.g., Physics → Social Science) | | Iterative Loop | Phase 2-3 | 4-round analysis method refinement cycle | | Semantic Distance | Phase 2 | Discover semantically distant analysis technique combinations | | Temporal Reframing | Phase 1 | Review methodology development from past/future perspectives | | Community Simulation | Phase 4-5 | Methodology feedback from 7 virtual statisticians |
Applied Checkpoints:
- CP-INIT-002: Select creativity level (conservative/innovative analysis)
- CP-VS-001: Select analysis method direction (multiple)
- CP-VS-002: Innovative methodology warning (T < 0.3)
- CP-VS-003: Analysis method satisfaction confirmation
- CP-FA-001: Select analogy source field
- CP-IL-001~004: Analysis refinement round progress
- CP-SD-001: Methodology combination distance threshold
- CP-CS-001: Select statistician personas
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md../../research-coordinator/core/t-score-dynamic.md../../research-coordinator/references/creativity-mechanisms.md../../research-coordinator/core/project-state.md../../research-coordinator/core/pipeline-templates.md../../research-coordinator/core/integration-hub.md../../research-coordinator/core/guided-wizard.md../../research-coordinator/core/auto-documentation.mddevelopment
Conduct rigorous thematic analysis (TA) of qualitative data following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Use whenever the user mentions 'thematic analysis', 'TA', 'Braun and Clarke', 'qualitative coding', 'identifying themes', or asks for help analysing interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, or transcripts to identify patterns. Also trigger for questions about inductive vs theoretical coding, semantic vs latent themes, essentialist vs constructionist epistemology, building a thematic map, or writing up a qualitative findings section. Covers all six phases, the four upfront analytic decisions, the 15-point quality checklist, and the five common pitfalls. Produces a Word document write-up and an annotated thematic map. Does NOT cover IPA, grounded theory, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, or narrative analysis — use a different method for those.
development
Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.
testing
Performs placebo-in-time sensitivity analysis with hierarchical null model and optional Bayesian assurance. Use when checking model robustness, verifying lack of pre-intervention effects, or estimating study power.
data-ai
Fit, summarize, plot, and interpret a chosen CausalPy experiment. Use after the causal method has been selected, including when configuring PyMC/sklearn models and scale-aware custom priors.