Menu
Compare two methods across multiple studies — paired meta-analysis protocol design. Budget: 30 studies, 30 effect sizes, 40 web searches.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
SOTA Performance Baseline Campaign — 5 strategies for systematically collecting, standardizing, and analyzing performance data across methods. Produces standardized comparison tables, progress curves, and headroom analysis.
Assess systematic biases in the evidence body — publication bias, reporting bias, and selective outcome reporting. Budget: 40 studies, 40 effect sizes, 40 web searches.
Track evidence accumulation over time — cumulative meta-analysis protocol design. Budget: 40 studies, 40 effect sizes, 30 web searches.
Design structured data extraction form for systematic meta-analysis data collection
Systematically extract effect sizes and conditions from papers for meta-analytic synthesis
Determine effect size types and calculation methods for meta-analytic synthesis
| name | pairwise-synthesis |
| description | Compare two methods across multiple studies — paired meta-analysis protocol design. Budget: 30 studies, 30 effect sizes, 40 web searches. |
Design a pairwise meta-analysis protocol comparing method A vs method B across multiple independent studies.
When two methods (interventions, algorithms, approaches) have been compared across multiple studies, synthesize the evidence into a single quantitative estimate of relative performance. This strategy produces the complete protocol — stopping before computation.
| Resource | Floor | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Studies identified | 20 | 30 |
| Effect sizes extracted | 20 | 30 |
| Web searches | 25 | 40 |
| Quality assessments | 15 | 30 |
Budget gate: cannot exit until 80% of floor met.
<HARD-GATE>
| Metric | Current | Floor | Target | Status |
|--------|---------|-------|--------|--------|
| Studies found | 0 | 20 | 30 | BLOCKED |
| Effect sizes planned | 0 | 20 | 30 | BLOCKED |
| Web searches done | 0 | 25 | 40 | BLOCKED |
| Quality assessed | 0 | 15 | 30 | BLOCKED |
</HARD-GATE>
| Tactic | When to Use |
|---|---|
| effect-size-extraction | After study identification, extract paired effect sizes |
| quality-assessment-protocol | Assess RoB for each included study |
| evidence-synthesis-planning | After extraction, plan the statistical model |
| SOP | When to Use |
|---|---|
| pico-formulation | First — frame the comparison question |
| inclusion-criteria-design | After PICO — define what studies qualify |
| effect-size-planning | Determine which effect size metric to use |
| data-extraction-form | Design the extraction template |
| risk-of-bias-assessment | Per-study quality assessment |
| sensitivity-analysis-design | Plan robustness checks |
| publication-bias-assessment | Assess reporting bias |
| meta-analysis-synthesis | Final protocol assembly |
pico-formulation to structure the comparisoninclusion-criteria-design to define eligibilityeffect-size-extraction tactic for each studyquality-assessment-protocol tactic for bias riskevidence-synthesis-planning tactic for model selectionmeta-analysis-synthesis to produce protocolIterate steps 3-5 until budget floor is met. Check state ledger before each iteration.
protocol:
question: [PICO-structured question]
inclusion_criteria: [eligibility rules]
studies_included: [list with metadata]
effect_size_type: [SMD/OR/RR/MD]
model: [fixed-effect/random-effects]
heterogeneity_plan: [I2, tau2, subgroup, meta-regression]
sensitivity_plan: [leave-one-out, influence diagnostics]
bias_assessment_plan: [funnel plot, Egger's, trim-and-fill]
reporting: PRISMA-2020