claude-code-for-social-scientists

Use when a complete research workflow — its instructions, skills, data boundaries, and tool connections — must be assessed for portability across AI agents or environments, so each component is explicitly mapped before migration rather than assumed to transfer.

Use when a Claude Code session loops, drifts from scope, claims a fix that CI rejects, hits context, PATH, or permission walls, or fails in a way another retry will not solve and a root cause diagnosis is needed instead.

Use when AI contribution metadata must match the actual workflow, when model alias and dated identifiers need auditing, when verified and fabricated citation counts feed a release decision, or when a venue's AI disclosure statement needs evidence behind it.

Use when a draft in Turkish, English, or both reads as AI-generated and needs revision that removes machine writing patterns and translation calques while preserving meaning, citations, statistics, and the author's voice.

Use when a reference list needs APA 7 cleanup, when DOIs must be confirmed real against Crossref or PubMed, when the user asks whether AI-suggested citations actually exist, or when a manuscript needs a citation hygiene pass before submission or defense.

Use when authorship order, CRediT contribution roles, or AI-assistance attribution must be recorded transparently for a manuscript, when an author dispute needs an evidence trail, or before a contributorship statement is required at submission; this skill maintains the human-attribution ledger of who contributed what and in which role (authorship order, CRediT taxonomy, revision responsibilities), which is distinct from the disclosure-metadata audit owned by ai-disclosure-auditor.

Use when paired tr.md and en.md files need a parity verdict, when titles, frontmatter, headings, or DOI sets may have drifted between languages, or when a bilingual document is approaching release and its translation coverage needs an audit.

Use when authoring a new manuscript, thesis chapter, or abstract from scratch in Turkish and English in parallel — building the claim skeleton first, then drafting Turkish and re-authoring English — not for auditing parity between existing versions.

Use when building slides, a poster, or a lightning talk from a manuscript, when a presentation must exist in Turkish and English, or when conference visuals need a traceability check so every number on a slide matches the analysis behind it.

Use when a high-stakes analysis, citation set, or decision should be checked by a second independent AI agent that verifies rather than decides, or when disagreement between agents must be surfaced for the human to adjudicate.

Use when an ethics committee or IRB application involves AI anywhere in the pipeline, when KVKK, GDPR, or EU AI Act duties must be mapped to a study, or when consent and disclosure language about AI use needs drafting before submission.

Use when a research proposal needs work packages, milestones, deliverables, a timeline, a risk register, and budget-justification scaffolding, while keeping scientific claims and feasibility honest and human-owned.

Use when choosing a journal for a finished or nearly finished manuscript, when index status in Scopus, SSCI, ESCI, or TR Dizin must be confirmed, when a venue looks predatory, or when a cover letter needs drafting from the manuscript's actual claims.

Use when choosing or configuring MCP servers for research work, when a literature, reference manager, or scholarly search server needs a trust check before installation, or when an existing research tool stack needs a data flow and permission audit.

Use when a research note system needs architecture, when MOCs, frontmatter standards, and retrieval patterns must be designed for years of work, or when an existing vault has outgrown its structure and must migrate without breaking years of links.

Use when a construct, scale, or key term crosses Turkish and English and conceptual equivalence must be audited: translation and back-translation, construct drift, and culturally bound meaning, before measurement or cross-cultural claims.

Use when a study's materials, data, code, or preprint need an open-science release: license choice, a persistent DOI (Zenodo/OSF), README and metadata, and an access-and-embargo decision that respects ethics constraints.

Use when serving as a peer reviewer and deciding whether and how AI may assist, when a manuscript under review must never be pasted into an external tool, or when a confidentiality-preserving review and disclosure are needed.

Use when a study needs a preregistration or a frozen analysis plan, when confirmatory and exploratory analyses must be separated, or when every deviation from the registered plan must be logged before the result is reported.

Use when a systematic, scoping, or rapid review needs a reproducible pipeline: protocol framing (PICO/SPIDER/PCC), a logged search string, title/abstract and full-text screening with recorded exclusion reasons, and PRISMA flow counts, with the human as the deciding screener.

Use when adapting academic findings for a public audience (op-ed, social post, podcast) and the simplification must stay evidence-faithful, avoid overclaiming, respect embargoes, and disclose AI assistance.

Use when coding interviews, focus groups, or open-ended responses with AI assistance, when a codebook needs building or auditing, when intercoder reliability must be computed, or when qualitative quotes need integrity checks before publication.

Use when reviewer comments arrive and each one needs a tracked decision, when a revise and resubmit letter must map every comment to a manuscript change, or when contradictory reviewer demands need evidence-based, editor-facing framing.

Use when a source must be reached through DergiPark, ULAKBIM TR Dizin, HEAL-Link, YOK Thesis Center, or an institutional library route, when off-campus access fails, or when a lawful retrieval plan is needed for Turkish, Greek, or European materials.

Use before a tag, GitHub release, or Zenodo archive, when README, CATALOG, CHANGELOG, CITATION.cff, the disclosure aggregate, and skill discovery must agree, or when a go or no-go release verdict needs recorded evidence behind it.

Use when a researcher asks where to start, which project skill fits the current stage of a study, or in what order literature scoping, source access, vault upkeep, drafting, citation verification, disclosure, and review response should run.

Use when automating research session rituals in Claude Code with hooks, such as session-start context injection, daily research logging, session-end persistence, or pre-commit guards that block secrets and unverified citations.

Use before sensitive, clinical, identifying, or raw interview data is placed in front of an AI tool, when transcripts or student materials need de-identification, or when a data-minimization gate must run before any analysis or drafting.

Use for the search-planning stage of a literature review, when database lanes and language layers must be chosen, when DOI coverage policy is unclear, or when inclusion and exclusion criteria need drafting before any source is read; not for running the screening and PRISMA pipeline of a formal review, which is prisma-scoping-review-pipeline.

Use when sources must stay traceable across sessions and years, when each reference needs a passport recording where it was found, how it was verified, and where it is cited, or when a draft needs a cited-but-unverified sweep before submission.

Use when selecting a statistical test with AI consultation, when assumptions need checking against the actual data, when an analysis plan or decision log must be written before running anything, or when results need APA-style reporting with effect sizes.

Use when designing a course, assessment, or student-feedback workflow and deciding where AI assistance is acceptable, when grading or feedback must stay within academic-integrity and FERPA/KVKK boundaries, or when AI-use rules for students need stating.