skills/25-HosungYou-Diverga/skills/i2/SKILL.md
Screening Assistant - AI-PRISMA 6-dimension screening with Groq LLM (100x cheaper) Supports two project types with different confidence thresholds Use when: screening papers, PRISMA screening, inclusion/exclusion criteria Triggers: screen papers, PRISMA screening, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, AI screening
npx skillsauth add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research i2Install 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("i2") → must return approved: true
If not approved → AskUserQuestion for each missing checkpoint (see .claude/references/checkpoint-templates.md)
diverga_mark_checkpoint("SCH_SCREENING_CRITERIA", decision, rationale)Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.
Agent ID: I2 Category: I - Systematic Review Automation Tier: MEDIUM (Sonnet) Icon: 📋✅
Executes AI-assisted PRISMA 2020 screening using a 6-dimension rubric. Leverages Groq LLM for 100x cost reduction compared to Claude, while maintaining screening quality. Supports two project types with different confidence thresholds.
| Provider | Model | Cost per 100 papers | Quality | |----------|-------|---------------------|---------| | Groq (Default) | llama-3.3-70b | $0.01 | Excellent | | Groq | qwen-qwq-32b | $0.008 | Good | | Claude | claude-haiku-4-5 | $0.15 | Excellent | | Claude | claude-sonnet-3-5 | $0.45 | Best | | Ollama | llama3.2:70b | $0 | Good (local) |
Recommendation: Use Groq for screening. Switch to Claude only for complex edge cases.
Required:
- project_path: "string"
- research_question: "string"
- project_type: "enum[knowledge_repository, systematic_review]"
Optional:
- llm_provider: "enum[groq, claude, ollama]"
- custom_criteria: "object"
- max_workers: "int"
- batch_size: "int"
main_output:
stage: "prisma_screening"
project_type: "string"
threshold: "int"
llm_provider: "string"
model: "string"
results:
total_screened: "int"
auto_included: "int"
auto_excluded: "int"
human_review: "int"
cost:
input_tokens: "int"
output_tokens: "int"
total_cost: "string"
output_files:
relevant_papers: "string"
excluded_papers: "string"
human_review: "string"
Before executing screening, I2 MUST:
PRESENT screening criteria:
AI-PRISMA 6-Dimension Screening Criteria
Project Type: {knowledge_repository | systematic_review}
Threshold: {50% | 90%} confidence
Scoring Rubric:
1. DOMAIN (0-10): Target population/context relevance
2. INTERVENTION (0-10): Technology/tool focus
3. METHOD (0-5): Study design rigor
4. OUTCOMES (0-10): Measured results clarity
5. EXCLUSION (-20 to 0): Penalties for wrong domain/review
6. TITLE BONUS (0 or 10): Keywords in title
Total Score Range: -20 to 50 points
Decision Rules:
- score ≥ {threshold} → auto-include
- score < 0 → auto-exclude
- otherwise → human-review
Do you approve these criteria?
WAIT for explicit approval
CONFIRM before executing screening
# Project path (set to your working directory)
cd "$(pwd)"
# Set LLM provider (v1.2.6: Groq default)
export LLM_PROVIDER=groq
export GROQ_API_KEY={api_key}
# Execute screening
python scripts/03_screen_papers.py \
--project {project_path} \
--question "{research_question}" \
--max-workers 8 \
--batch-size 50
I2 validates AI evidence quotes against abstracts:
def validate_evidence_grounding(quotes, abstract):
"""Flag potential hallucinations"""
for quote in quotes:
if quote.lower() not in abstract.lower():
return False, "FLAGGED: Potential hallucination"
return True, None
Papers with hallucinated evidence are routed to human review.
| Keywords (EN) | Keywords (KR) | Action | |---------------|---------------|--------| | screen papers, PRISMA screening | 논문 스크리닝, 선별 | Activate I2 | | inclusion criteria, exclusion | 포함 기준, 제외 기준 | Activate I2 | | AI screening, automated screening | AI 스크리닝 | Activate I2 |
I2 can call B2-evidence-quality-appraiser for deeper quality assessment:
Task(
subagent_type="diverga:b2",
model="sonnet",
prompt="""
Assess quality of included papers using:
- Risk of Bias (RoB) for RCTs
- Newcastle-Ottawa for observational
- GRADE for overall evidence quality
"""
)
requires: ["I1-paper-retrieval-agent"]
sequential_next: ["I3-rag-builder"]
parallel_compatible: ["B2-evidence-quality-appraiser"]
development
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.