pedrohcgs/audit-reproducibility

Audit Reproducibility

Compare numeric claims in a manuscript (point estimates, standard errors, p-values, counts) against the actual outputs produced by the analysis pipeline. Report PASS / FAIL per claim against the tolerance thresholds defined in .claude/rules/replication-protocol.md.

Core principle: If the paper says ATT = -1.632 (0.584) and the code produces -1.628 (0.591), we verify — numerically — that the difference is within the documented tolerance. No more "looks close enough" eyeballing.

When to use

• Before submission. Catches the "I updated the analysis but forgot to update Table 2" bug.
• Before releasing a replication package. Verifies the code actually reproduces the paper.
• After a major revision. Ensures the paper still matches the latest code.
• Quality-gate in /commit. Pair with a pre-commit invocation on manuscript + analysis changes.

Inputs

• $0 — path to the manuscript (.tex, .qmd, .md, .pdf). Required.
• $1 — path to the outputs directory. Defaults to scripts/R/_outputs/. Can be _targets/objects/, a Stata .do-file log directory, etc.

Workflow

Phase 0: Pre-flight

1. Read replication-protocol.md for the tolerance thresholds currently in effect.
2. Verify the outputs directory exists and is non-empty. If empty or stale (older than the manuscript), prompt the user to re-run their pipeline (e.g., Rscript scripts/R/00_run_all.R) before auditing.
3. Ensure a sessionInfo.txt or equivalent environment capture exists in the outputs dir.

Phase 1: Extract claims from the manuscript

Parse the manuscript for numeric claims. Patterns to match:

• Point-estimate + SE: ATT = -1.632 (0.584), $\beta = 0.342$ (0.091), hat{\tau} = 1.28** with starred significance
• Table cells: & -1.632$^{***}$ & 0.584 & in LaTeX table environments
• Counts: our sample of 2,847 firms, $N = 2{,}847$
• Summary stats: mean = 0.423, SD = 0.087
• P-values: p < 0.01, $p = 0.003$

Record each claim as a tuple:

{
  claim_id: "Table2_col3_ATT",
  location: "Table 2, Column 3, row 'Treatment'",
  kind: "point_estimate" | "standard_error" | "p_value" | "count" | "percentage",
  reported_value: -1.632,
  uncertainty: 0.584,              # only for point estimates
  significance_stars: 3,            # 0-3 or None
  raw_context: "the ATT estimate of -1.632 (0.584) indicates..."
}

Write the extracted claims to quality_reports/reproducibility_claims_[manuscript-name].json so the user can review the extraction before audit.

Phase 2: Extract results from outputs

Scan $1 for corresponding values. Priority order:

1. .rds files — readRDS(path)$coef[["treatment"]] style lookups. Can use Rscript -e "saveRDS(summary(readRDS(...)), '/tmp/audit.rds')" to extract.
2. .tex tables — parse LaTeX table cells directly; match on column headers + row labels.
3. .csv summary files — pandas/readr parse, key-value lookup.
4. .out / .log files (Stata, regress output) — regex extraction.
5. .json — direct key lookup.

Record each extracted result:

{
  source: "scripts/R/_outputs/results.rds",
  lookup_key: "fit_main$coefficients['treated']",
  value: -1.628,
  uncertainty: 0.591,
  p_value: 0.005
}

Phase 3: Match claims to results

Use fuzzy heuristics when exact labels don't match:

• Name similarity ("treatment effect" ~ "ATT" ~ "treated")
• Magnitude similarity (if two candidates have values within 10% of the reported, prefer the one with closer SE)
• Context hints from the claim's raw_context field (table number, row label, description)

For every claim, produce a match candidate with a confidence score. Claims below 0.7 confidence get flagged as "UNMATCHED — manual review needed" rather than silently passing.

Phase 4: Tolerance check

For each matched claim, apply the thresholds from replication-protocol.md:

| Kind | Tolerance | Example | |---|---|---| | Integers (N, counts) | Exact | 2,847 must equal 2,847 | | Point estimates | abs(reported - computed) < 0.01 | -1.632 vs -1.628 → diff = 0.004 → PASS | | Standard errors | abs(reported - computed) < 0.05 | 0.584 vs 0.591 → diff = 0.007 → PASS | | P-values | Same significance level | p<0.01 and p<0.01 → PASS; p<0.01 and p=0.03 → FAIL | | Percentages | ±0.1pp | 42.3% vs 42.35% → PASS |

Respect any tolerance overrides the user has written into their replication-protocol.md fork (they may loosen for MC noise or tighten for administrative data).

Phase 5: Report

Write quality_reports/reproducibility_audit_[manuscript-name].md:

# Reproducibility Audit: [Manuscript Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Manuscript:** [path]
**Outputs directory:** [path]
**Tolerance source:** .claude/rules/replication-protocol.md

## Summary

| Status | Count |
|---|---|
| PASS | N |
| FAIL (diff > tolerance) | M |
| UNMATCHED (manual review) | K |
| **Overall verdict** | **PASS / FAIL** |

## PASS (all within tolerance)
| Claim | Reported | Computed | Diff | Tolerance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Table2_col3_ATT | -1.632 (0.584) | -1.628 (0.591) | 0.004 / 0.007 | 0.01 / 0.05 |

## FAIL (outside tolerance — BLOCKER)
| Claim | Reported | Computed | Diff | Tolerance | Location in paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## UNMATCHED (manual review)
| Claim | Raw context | Candidate sources |
|---|---|---|

## Environment
[sessionInfo excerpt]

## Next steps
1. Fix any FAIL rows — either update the manuscript or rerun analysis.
2. Review UNMATCHED rows — add explicit lookup keys or widen the search scope.
3. After zero FAILs, the paper is replication-ready.

Exit behavior

• All PASS: exit 0, summary printed.
• Any FAIL: exit 1, summary printed to stderr. This makes the skill usable as a /commit pre-commit gate — see replication-protocol.md for the enforcement pattern.
• UNMATCHED > 0 (with 0 FAIL): exit 0 with warning — user must manually review.

Cross-references

• .claude/rules/replication-protocol.md — the tolerance contract.
• .claude/skills/review-r/SKILL.md — catches code-style issues; this skill catches NUMERICAL reproducibility.
• .claude/skills/review-paper/SKILL.md — content review; pair with this skill for a full pre-submission audit.

What this skill does NOT do

• Re-run your analysis. The skill compares CURRENT outputs against manuscript claims. If the outputs are stale, re-run your pipeline first (the pre-flight phase will warn).
• Catch wrong specifications. A regression that compiles cleanly and produces a reproducible -1.632 is reproducible. Whether -1.632 is the RIGHT estimand is a review-paper / domain-reviewer question.
• Check external package versions. The sessionInfo.txt capture lets a reviewer see the env; pinning versions is on the user (via renv.lock or a DESCRIPTION file).