co-scientist-audit-report

name	co-scientist-audit-report
description	Research audit report skill. Systematic quality assessment of experimental designs, statistical analyses, reproducibility, and reporting standards compliance. Use when working with systematic quality assessment of experimental designs, statistical analyses, reproducibility.

Research audit report

Research audit report skill. Systematic quality assessment of experimental designs, statistical analyses, reproducibility, and reporting standards compliance.

Use This Skill When

• Systematic quality assessment of experimental designs.
• Statistical analyses.
• Reproducibility.
• Reporting standards compliance.

Required Inputs

• Research objective, decision target, or hypothesis.
• Available data, source constraints, and domain assumptions.
• Required outputs, success metrics, and deadline or reproducibility constraints.

Workflow

1. Confirm scope, assumptions, and the exact artifact set to save.
2. Apply the narrowest domain method that answers the request with defensible evidence.
3. Save code, tables, figures, and intermediate outputs to files instead of chat-only output.
4. State limitations, uncertainty, and any validation or sensitivity checks performed.
5. Append skill selection, handoff I/O, and file writes to logs/process-log.jsonl.

Deliverables

• report.md: concise method, results, interpretation, and file inventory in the user's language.
• results/: structured outputs, metrics, model artifacts, or extracted findings.
• figures/: English-only charts, diagrams, or panels when visual output is needed.
• data/: processed or derived datasets when transformation occurs.

Quality Gates

• The selected method matches the scientific question and stated assumptions.
• Outputs are reproducible, saved to files, and traceable from inputs to conclusions.
• Missing data, uncertainty, bias, and hard limits are made explicit.
• report.md and logs/process-log.jsonl reference the generated artifacts.
• No essential result remains chat-only.

If any gate fails: identify the specific failing check, fix the issue, and re-validate before proceeding.

Gotchas

• Citation style varies by journal (author-year vs numbered). Confirm target format before writing
• Claims in Discussion must trace back to specific Results. Do not introduce new data in Discussion
• Supplementary materials must be self-contained with their own figure/table numbering

Validation Loop

1. Execute analysis and generate outputs
2. Check:
   • Method selection matches the research question and stated assumptions
   • All outputs are saved to files (no chat-only results)
   • Limitations and uncertainty are explicitly stated
   • logs/process-log.jsonl is updated with execution trace
3. If any check fails:
   • Identify the failing gate
   • Fix the specific issue
   • Re-run validation
4. Proceed only after all gates pass