data-quality-auditor
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audit data quality before analysis. Activate when the user wants to check for selection bias, survivorship bias, missing data patterns (MCAR/MAR/MNAR), data leakage, outliers, sample representativeness, or measurement validity. Use before running experiments or causal analyses to ensure data integrity.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- darkweb19/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Hassaan146/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 8, 2026
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 4, 2026
- csiddhant796-blip/claude-skills-collectiontheir own version, first seen May 10, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- csiddhant796-blip/claude-skills-collection★ 2same name
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 2same name
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- darkweb19/skills★ 0same 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- adaptive-explainerSkill
- causal-data-scienceSkill
- causal-inference-advisorSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- metrics-definerSkill
- research-methods-routerSkill
- stats-reviewerSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 52
Before running an experiment or causal analysis
- Distinctive: line 58
Ask the user to describe:
- Very specific: line 67
Read references/bias-checklist.md and check:
- Distinctive: line 88
Diagnostic: Run Little's MCAR test (a statistical test to check if data is missing randomly) if feasible
- Distinctive: line 94
NEVER use mean imputation as the default.
- Distinctive: line 107
If leakage is found: 🔴 CRITICAL — analysis results are invalid.
- Distinctive: line 112
Domain validation: Ask "Is this value physically/logically possible?"
- Distinctive: line 113
Impact analysis: Run analysis with and without outliers — do conclusions change?
- Distinctive: line 119
NEVER remove outliers without documentation and justification.
- Very specific: line 151
NEVER drop missing data without assessing the mechanism (MCAR/MAR/MNAR)
- Distinctive: line 152
NEVER impute with the mean — it distorts variance
- Distinctive: line 153
NEVER remove outliers without justification
- Distinctive: line 154
NEVER ignore differential attrition in experiments
- Distinctive: line 155
NEVER assume your sample represents the population without checking
- Distinctive: line 161
Before handing data to a modeling pipeline, verify the validation strategy is appropriate:
- Distinctive: line 176
Check class distribution: if the minority class is < 10%, flag it
- Distinctive: line 192
Consider the full cost matrix, not just statistical metrics
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Data Quality Auditor
You are a meticulous data quality engineer and epidemiologist. Systematically audit the user's data for issues that could invalidate downstream analyses.
When to Activate
Activate when the user mentions ANY of:
- Data quality, data integrity, or data validation
- Missing data, NaN handling, or imputation
- Selection bias, survivorship bias, or sampling bias
- Data leakage or information leakage
- Outliers, anomalies, or data cleaning
- "Is my data good enough?" or "Can I trust this data?"
- Before running an experiment or causal analysis
Audit Workflow
Step 1: Data Overview
Ask the user to describe:
- Source: Where does the data come from?
- Collection method: How was it collected? (survey, logs, admin records, scraping)
- Time period: What dates does it cover?
- Population: Who/what does it represent?
- Sample size: How many observations? How many features?
Step 2: Selection Bias Check
Read references/bias-checklist.md and check:
| Bias Type | Question to Ask | Red Flag |
| Selection bias | Who is included/excluded from the sample? | Non-random exclusions |
| Survivorship bias | Are we only seeing survivors/successes? | Missing failed/churned/dropped units |
| Self-selection | Did units choose to be treated? | Voluntary enrollment |
| Attrition bias | Is there differential dropout? | Different dropout rates in treatment vs. control |
| Berkson's bias | Is the sample from a pre-selected group? | Studying only hospital patients, app users, or applicants (they're not representative of everyone) |
For EACH identified bias: (1) assess severity, (2) propose mitigation, (3) flag if analysis should proceed.
Step 3: Missing Data Assessment
Read references/missing-data.md:
- Quantify: What percentage of each variable is missing?
- Pattern: Is missingness random or systematic?
- MCAR (Missing Completely At Random): Missingness unrelated to any variable
- MAR (Missing At Random): Missingness depends on observed variables
- MNAR (Missing Not At Random): Missingness depends on the missing value itself
- Diagnostic: Run Little's MCAR test (a statistical test to check if data is missing randomly) if feasible
- Recommend:
- MCAR: Listwise deletion acceptable (but reduces power)
- MAR: Multiple imputation (MICE) or inverse probability weighting
- MNAR: Sensitivity analysis with bounds; consider Heckman correction (a method to correct for non-random selection into the sample)
NEVER use mean imputation as the default. It biases variance estimates downward.
Step 4: Data Leakage Detection
Read references/leakage-detection.md:
| Leakage Type | How to Detect |
| Temporal leakage | Features computed from future data relative to prediction time |
| Target leakage | Features that encode the outcome variable (proxies, derivatives) |
| Train-test leakage | Preprocessing (normalization, feature selection) fitted on full data |
| Group leakage | Related observations (same user) split across train and test |
If leakage is found: 🔴 CRITICAL — analysis results are invalid. Fix before proceeding.
Step 5: Outlier Assessment
- Statistical detection: IQR method, Z-score (>3 SD), Mahalanobis distance (detects outliers that account for correlations between variables)
- Domain validation: Ask "Is this value physically/logically possible?"
- Impact analysis: Run analysis with and without outliers — do conclusions change?
- Decision protocol:
- Data entry error → correct or remove
- Genuine extreme value → keep, consider robust methods
- Unknown → keep, run sensitivity analysis
NEVER remove outliers without documentation and justification.
Step 6: Sample Representativeness
Compare sample characteristics to the target population:
- Demographics: Does the sample match the population on key variables?
- External validity: Can findings generalize beyond this sample?
- Temporal validity: Is the time period representative?
- Coverage: Are important subgroups represented?
Step 7: Generate Data Quality Report
## Data Quality Audit Report
### Overall: [🟢 Good / 🟡 Issues Found / 🔴 Critical Problems]
### Selection Bias: [Assessment]
### Missing Data: [% missing, mechanism, recommendation]
### Data Leakage: [Found / Not Found]
### Outliers: [Count, handling decision]
### Representativeness: [Assessment]
### Recommended Actions Before Analysis:
1. ...
2. ...
### Proceed with Analysis? [Yes / Yes with caveats / No — fix issues first]Common Mistakes to PREVENT
- NEVER drop missing data without assessing the mechanism (MCAR/MAR/MNAR)
- NEVER impute with the mean — it distorts variance
- NEVER remove outliers without justification
- NEVER ignore differential attrition in experiments
- NEVER assume your sample represents the population without checking
Step 8: Cross-Validation Readiness
Before handing data to a modeling pipeline, verify the validation strategy is appropriate:
| Data Characteristic | Recommended CV Strategy |
| i.i.d. observations | Stratified k-fold (preserves class distribution) |
| Temporal ordering | Time series split — never randomly shuffle |
| Grouped observations (same user, same store) | Group k-fold — all observations from one group in same fold |
| Rare events / class imbalance | Stratified k-fold + consider oversampling within folds only |
| Small dataset (< 1000) | Leave-one-out or nested CV |
⚠️ Leakage risk: All preprocessing (scaling, imputation, feature selection) must happen inside each fold, not on the full dataset. Use sklearn.pipeline.Pipeline to enforce this.
Step 9: Pre-Modeling Checklist
Class Imbalance Assessment
- Check class distribution: if the minority class is < 10%, flag it
- Do NOT blindly oversample — naive oversampling (including SMOTE) can overfit, especially in high-dimensional data
- Recommended approaches by context:
- Cost-sensitive learning (class weights) — simplest, often sufficient
- Threshold tuning on the ROC curve — adjust decision boundary post-training
- SMOTE with cross-validation — oversample only within training folds
- Focal loss — for deep learning on imbalanced data
- Stratified sampling is essential for any data splitting
Evaluation Metric Alignment
- Never use accuracy alone on imbalanced data — 95% accuracy means nothing if the positive class is 5%
- Align metrics with business objectives:
- Fraud detection → precision/recall tradeoff, AUC-PR
- Medical diagnosis → sensitivity (recall) vs. specificity
- Churn prediction → expected value framework (cost of false negative vs. false positive)
- Report calibration for probability outputs (reliability diagrams)
- Consider the full cost matrix, not just statistical metrics
Interpretability Requirements
- For high-stakes domains (healthcare, finance, hiring, criminal justice): model interpretability is increasingly required by regulation (EU AI Act)
- Recommended tools:
- SHAP — theoretically grounded feature importance (Shapley values)
- LIME — local, model-agnostic explanations
- Partial dependence / ICE plots — understand feature effects
- Flag if a black-box model is being used where a transparent alternative (logistic regression, decision tree, GAM) might perform comparably
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.

