survey-ai-detection
Skill15 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
Detect AI-generated survey responses using multiple heuristic and statistical methods.
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- affinity-mappingSkill
- empathy-mappingSkill
- hmw-statementsSkill
- journey-mappingSkill
- jtbd-analysisSkill
- kappa-thematic-analysisSkill
- persona-creationSkill
- prioritization-matrixSkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- taxonomy-generatorSkill
- thematic-analysisSkill
- user-flow-mappingSkill
- design-system-auditSkill
- handoff-documentationSkill
- longitudinal-trackingSkill
- nps-analysisSkill
- regression-impactSkill
- repository-curationSkill
- research-retroSkill
- stakeholder-presentationSkill
- sus-umux-scoringSkill
- task-analysis-quantSkill
- ab-test-analysisSkill
- card-sortingSkill
- cognitive-walkthroughSkill
- concept-testingSkill
- design-critiqueSkill
- heuristic-evaluationSkill
- prototype-feedbackSkill
- tree-testingSkill
- usability-testingSkill
- workshop-facilitationSkill
- accessibility-auditSkill
- analytics-reviewSkill
- channel-research-deploymentSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- contextual-inquirySkill
- desk-researchSkill
- diary-studiesSkill
- field-studiesSkill
- interview-question-generatorSkill
- stakeholder-interviewsSkill
- survey-designSkill
- survey-generatorSkill
- user-interviewsSkill
The file
Files
Survey AI Response Detection
Detect AI-generated survey responses using multiple heuristic and statistical methods.
Methods (applied in order)
- Linguistic analysis — Vocabulary diversity (Type-Token Ratio), perplexity scoring, burstiness patterns, formality consistency
- Response patterns — Timing analysis, straightlining detection, semantic similarity clustering between responses
- Behavioral signals — Completion time vs expected, sequential patterns, copy-paste indicators
- Content quality — Generic/surface-level answers, absence of personal anecdotes, overly structured responses
- Statistical outliers — Responses deviating from expected distributions
References
Based on academic research:
- Wu et al. 2025 — "A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection" (ACL Anthology)
- Yang et al. 2024 — "A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content" (EMNLP Findings)
- Dhaini et al. 2023 — "Detecting ChatGPT: State of Detection" (RANLP)
See references/detection-methods.md for detailed algorithm descriptions.
Input
- Survey response data (CSV, JSON, or text)
- Expected completion time (optional)
- Response metadata (timestamps, device info — if available)
Output
- Per-response flag level (high/medium/low) with confidence score
- Detection method evidence for each flag
- Aggregate statistics (flag rate, clean dataset size)
- Recommendation per response: remove, review, or keep
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.

