data-availability
Skill661 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when drafting, auditing, or revising Data Availability statements, repository plans, accession-number placement, source-data coverage, or restricted-data wording for journal submission or resubmission.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- celo-org/buy-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- celo-org/buy-skill★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- anti-defensive-writingSkill
- citation-verifierSkill
- claim-source-verificationSkill
- draft-marker-disciplineSkill
- figure-plannerSkill
- manuscript-optimizerSkill
- paper-bootstrapSkill
- paper-workflowSkill
- rebuttal-responseSkill
- results-section-revisionSkill
- review-article-architectureSkill
- scientific-prose-styleSkill
- scientific-writingSkill
- stats-reporting-auditSkill
- submission-auditSkill
- write-scientific-manuscriptSkill
- figure-styleSkill
- nature-figureSkill
- academic-presentationsSkill
- conference-paper-writingSkill
- reference-audit-guideSkill
- academic-researcherSkill
- paper-analyzerSkill
- results-analysisSkill
- paper-reviewerSkill
- nature-portfolio-playbookSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 10
Use this skill to turn manuscript-supporting data into a submission-ready availability package: statement text, repository plan, …
- Distinctive: line 16
Use this skill when:
- Distinctive: line 23
Do not use this skill for:
- Distinctive: line 46
Check that the statement covers both newly generated and reused data.
- Distinctive: line 51
Prefer public, discipline-specific repositories when possible.
- Very specific: line 52
Treat available upon request as weak unless a real legal, ethical, commercial, or third-party restriction exists.
- Distinctive: line 53
If data cannot be public, state:
- Distinctive: line 58
Do not merge data, code, protocols, and materials into one vague availability sentence unless the journal explicitly wants that.
- Distinctive: line 59
Do not invent accession numbers, DOIs, repository names, reviewer links, or embargo terms.
- Distinctive: line 81
Use when drafting or repairing the actual statement text.
- Distinctive: line 83
Use when deciding where each dataset should live and what identifier type is needed.
- Distinctive: line 85
Use when checking whether figures, tables, and supplements expose enough underlying data.
- Distinctive: line 87
Use when the journal expects FAIR or DataCite-style dataset metadata, or a formal dataset citation.
- Distinctive: line 89
Use when aligning a Chinese-language data-availability draft to English submission wording.
- Distinctive: line 93
When using this skill, return:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Data Availability
Overview
Use this skill to turn manuscript-supporting data into a submission-ready availability package: statement text, repository plan, source-data mapping, and unresolved-risk flags.
This skill is narrower than submission-audit and more operational than scientific-writing. Use it when the bottleneck is no longer the paper's story, but whether the data-sharing package is specific, durable, and journal-ready.
When To Use
Use this skill when:
- the manuscript needs a
Data Availabilitystatement - accession numbers, DOIs, repository records, or source-data files are missing or unstable
- the paper mixes generated data, reused public data, and restricted data
- "available upon request" wording needs to be tightened or replaced
- a submission or revision needs data-sharing text that editors can audit quickly
Do not use this skill for:
- generic section rewriting unrelated to data sharing
- full manuscript restructuring
- bibliography cleanup that does not affect dataset availability
Workflow
- Identify the target journal and article type.
- Inventory the datasets that support the main and supplementary claims:
- raw data
- processed data
- figure source data
- reused public datasets
- code-adjacent outputs that are necessary to inspect the results
- Assign each dataset one access route only:
- public repository
- controlled-access repository
- within paper or supplement
- reused public source
- third-party restricted
- justified request route
- Choose repository and identifier strategy before drafting the statement.
- Draft explicit dataset-to-location wording.
- Check that the statement covers both newly generated and reused data.
- Flag unresolved fields rather than inventing repository names, accession IDs, DOIs, or access rules.
Working Rules
- Prefer public, discipline-specific repositories when possible.
- Treat
available upon requestas weak unless a real legal, ethical, commercial, or third-party restriction exists. - If data cannot be public, state:
- why access is restricted
- who controls access
- how requests are reviewed
- what metadata, source data, or derived data remain public
- Do not merge data, code, protocols, and materials into one vague availability sentence unless the journal explicitly wants that.
- Do not invent accession numbers, DOIs, repository names, reviewer links, or embargo terms.
- List only the resources the analyses actually used, and say plainly where they came from ("All response data were obtained from [collection], [DOI]"). Resources the study did not use are not listed, and an identifier the source does not record is left out rather than confessed as "not exposed" or "could not be identified"; flag such gaps to the author instead.
- Promise nothing: state the routes and files that exist now. "On request" and "Source Data files" appear only when that route or file is real, and a future release or arranged access ("will be released", "planned before acceptance", "can be arranged") is not stated at all.
- Name the scientific content, not the repository layout: no folder paths (
source_data/), file mechanics or workbook instructions in the statement. - Name the public repositories actually used, for example a Hugging Face dataset for processed inputs and a GitHub repository for code, and keep the Code availability statement consistent with what the released repository contains.
- A Supplementary Data table of sources has one row per resource used, no column that is identical in every row, and publications taken from the manuscript's own bibliography so the two cannot disagree. Generate it from the analysis tables where possible.
Related Files
Open these only when needed:
references/statement-patterns.mdUse when drafting or repairing the actual statement text.references/repository-routing.mdUse when deciding where each dataset should live and what identifier type is needed.references/source-data-checks.mdUse when checking whether figures, tables, and supplements expose enough underlying data.references/fair-metadata-checklist.mdUse when the journal expects FAIR or DataCite-style dataset metadata, or a formal dataset citation.references/chinese-author-alignment.mdUse when aligning a Chinese-language data-availability draft to English submission wording.
Output Standard
When using this skill, return:
- ready-to-paste
Data Availabilitytext - repository and identifier actions still required
- missing information or blocking risks
- a short note on whether the current package is:
ready_to_submitdraft_with_placeholdersneeds_author_inputblocked
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

