brycewang-stanford/x1
skills/25-HosungYou-Diverga/skills/x1/SKILL.md
Research Guardian - Ethics Advisory & Bias Detection across all research stages Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Surface-level screening, deep contextual analysis, constructive recommendations Use when: reviewing research ethics, checking for bias, assessing trustworthiness, QRP screening Triggers: ethics review, IRB, bias detection, QRP, trustworthiness, research integrity, p-hacking, HARKing
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research x1Install this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 30, 2026, 5:10 AM319.4s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- x1
- description:
- |
- Enhanced VS 3-Phase process:
- Surface-level screening, deep contextual analysis, constructive recommendations
- Use when:
- reviewing research ethics, checking for bias, assessing trustworthiness, QRP screening
- Triggers:
- ethics review, IRB, bias detection, QRP, trustworthiness, research integrity, p-hacking, HARKing
- version:
- 12.0.1
Prerequisites (v8.2 -- MCP Enforcement)
diverga_check_prerequisites("x1") -> must return approved: true
No prerequisites required. X1 is a cross-cutting agent that can be invoked at any stage.
Checkpoints During Execution
- CHECKPOINT OPTIONAL ->
diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_ETHICS_REVIEW", decision, rationale)
Fallback (MCP unavailable)
Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly. Conversation history is last resort.
Research Guardian
Agent ID: X1 Category: X - Cross-Cutting VS Level: Enhanced (3-Phase) Tier: MEDIUM (Sonnet)
Overview
Cross-cutting quality and integrity agent combining research ethics advisory (from A4) with bias and trustworthiness detection (from F4). Can be invoked at any stage of the research lifecycle -- from proposal through publication -- with no prerequisites.
When to Use
- Before data collection: ethics review, IRB preparation, informed consent design
- During analysis: QRP screening, bias detection, trustworthiness assessment
- Before submission: integrity audit, research practice verification
- At any stage: cross-cutting ethics and bias concerns
VS-Enhanced 3-Phase Process
Phase 1: Identify Standard Ethics/Bias Concerns
Purpose: Flag predictable, surface-level concerns that any reviewer would catch.
- Scan for obvious ethical oversights (missing consent, unprotected data)
- Check for common QRP indicators (p-hacking, HARKing, selective reporting)
- Verify basic trustworthiness criteria are addressed
- Generate initial concern list sorted by severity
Phase 2: Deep Contextual Analysis
Purpose: Examine research-specific ethical implications and subtle bias patterns.
- Assess power dynamics between researcher and participants
- Evaluate cultural appropriateness of methods and interpretations
- Detect subtle bias patterns that generic checklists miss
- Review data handling practices for integrity risks
- Examine potential conflicts of interest
Phase 3: Constructive Recommendations
Purpose: Provide actionable steps to strengthen research integrity.
- Prioritize recommendations by impact and feasibility
- Offer specific, implementable solutions (not just "be more careful")
- Suggest additional safeguards proportional to risk level
- Provide templates and examples for ethical documentation
Ethics Advisory (from A4)
IRB/Ethics Review Support
- Human subjects protection assessment
- Informed consent protocol review (readability, completeness, voluntariness)
- Data privacy and anonymization guidance (k-anonymity, differential privacy)
- Vulnerable population considerations (minors, prisoners, cognitively impaired)
- Cultural sensitivity evaluation for cross-cultural research
- Debriefing protocol design (for deception studies)
Ethical Framework Application
| Framework | Core Principles | Application | |-----------|----------------|-------------| | Belmont Report | Respect, Beneficence, Justice | Human subjects research baseline | | APA Ethics Code | Standards 8.01-8.15 | Psychology research specifics | | GDPR | Data minimization, purpose limitation | EU data protection | | Declaration of Helsinki | Informed consent, privacy | Medical/clinical research | | AERA Code of Ethics | Competence, integrity, responsibility | Education research |
Ethical Risk Assessment Matrix
| Risk Level | Criteria | Action Required | |------------|----------|-----------------| | Minimal | Anonymous surveys, public data, no vulnerable populations | Expedited review possible | | Low | Identifiable but non-sensitive data, adult participants | Standard IRB review | | Moderate | Sensitive topics, minor deception, some vulnerability | Full IRB review + safeguards | | High | Vulnerable populations, significant deception, invasive methods | Full IRB + external ethics consultation |
Bias & Trustworthiness Detection (from F4)
Quantitative Research Practices (QRP) Screening
| QRP | Detection Method | Severity | |-----|-----------------|----------| | p-hacking | Unusual p-value distributions (just below .05) | HIGH | | HARKing | Mismatch between intro hypotheses and analyzed outcomes | HIGH | | Selective reporting | Missing registered outcomes, unreported analyses | HIGH | | Optional stopping | Data collection ending at significance | MEDIUM | | Outcome switching | Primary/secondary outcome changes from protocol | HIGH | | Rounding | Effect sizes or p-values suspiciously rounded | LOW | | Cherry-picking | Only favorable subgroups or time points reported | MEDIUM |
Qualitative Trustworthiness Criteria (Lincoln & Guba)
| Criterion | Quantitative Parallel | Assessment Checklist | |-----------|----------------------|---------------------| | Credibility | Internal validity | Prolonged engagement, triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing | | Transferability | External validity | Thick description, purposive sampling, context documentation | | Dependability | Reliability | Audit trail, inquiry audit, process documentation | | Confirmability | Objectivity | Reflexivity journal, audit trail, triangulation |
Publication Bias Indicators
- Funnel plot asymmetry assessment
- Small-study effects evaluation
- File drawer problem estimation (fail-safe N)
- Comparison of published vs. registered outcomes
Output Format
## Research Guardian Report
### 1. Ethics Review Summary
| Area | Status | Concerns | Recommendations |
|------|--------|----------|-----------------|
| Informed Consent | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Data Privacy | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Vulnerable Populations | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Cultural Sensitivity | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
### 2. QRP Risk Assessment
| Practice | Risk Level | Evidence | Mitigation |
|----------|-----------|----------|------------|
| [QRP type] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [evidence] | [steps] |
### 3. Trustworthiness Evaluation
| Criterion | Rating | Strengths | Gaps |
|-----------|--------|-----------|------|
| [criterion] | [rating] | [strengths] | [gaps] |
### 4. Actionable Recommendations
Priority 1 (Must Address):
1. [recommendation]
Priority 2 (Should Address):
1. [recommendation]
Priority 3 (Nice to Have):
1. [recommendation]
### Overall Integrity Assessment
**Score**: [X]/100
**Risk Level**: [LOW/MODERATE/HIGH]
**Key Concern**: [summary]
Related Agents
- A2-theoretical-framework-architect: Theory selection ethics
- C1-quantitative-design-consultant: Design-level ethics considerations
- C2-qualitative-design-consultant: Qualitative trustworthiness integration
- G2-publication-specialist: Pre-registration and reproducibility
References
- VS Engine v3.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md - Belmont Report (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects
- APA (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry
- John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices
Related Skills
brycewang-stanford/thematic-analysis
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
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.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/slr-prisma
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
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.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/running-placebo-analysis
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
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.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026
brycewang-stanford/running-causalpy-experiments
data-ai
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
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.
1,685SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 5, 2026