research-harness-release
Skill42 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
RES: Build the replication/evidence package after a review APPROVE verdict. Assembles scripts, logs, cleaned-data docs, tables, figures, and reproducibility report. Requires human confirmation gate. Trigger: release research, build replication package, package evidence, finalize study. Do NOT load for: planning, execution, review, setup, audit, cleaning.
In this repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-browserSkill
- authSkill
- ciSkill
- crudSkill
- deploySkill
- harness-acceptSkill
- harness-loopSkill
- harness-plan-briefSkill
- harness-planSkill
- harness-progressSkill
- harness-releaseSkill
- harness-reviewSkill
- harness-setupSkill
- harness-syncSkill
- harness-workSkill
- maintenanceSkill
- memorySkill
- principlesSkill
- research-harness-auditSkill
- research-harness-cleanSkill
- research-harness-planSkill
- research-harness-reviewSkill
- research-harness-setupSkill
- research-harness-workSkill
- session-controlSkill
- session-initSkill
- session-memorySkill
- sessionSkill
- session-stateSkill
- uiSkill
- workflow-guideSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
12
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 37
Read reports/review_report.md.
- Very specific: line 38
Check the verdict in reports/review_report.md.
- Very specific: line 39
Read study_spec.md and analysis_plan.md.
- Very specific: line 61
Scripts: all scripts referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
- Very specific: line 63
Logs: all logs referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
- Very specific: line 65
Outputs: all tables and figures referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
- Distinctive: line 126
If the user says no: stop.
- Very specific: line 134
§1 Software environment: read from script headers (language and package versions mentioned in comments or sessionInfo() / pip freeze output …
- Very specific: line 148
§8 How to reproduce: write step-by-step instructions.
- Very specific: line 156
Create release/ at the project root (or the user-specified path).
- Very specific: line 184
Do not include raw data under data/raw/ unless the user explicitly instructs it (and it is not confidential).
- Very specific: line 214
Do not proceed if the review verdict is not APPROVE
- Distinctive: line 215
Do not proceed without human confirmation (Step 2)
- Very specific: line 216
Do not include files from data/raw/ unless the user explicitly approves
- Distinctive: line 217
Do not claim full reproducibility if data access restrictions prevent it — document them in §3 and §8
- Distinctive: line 218
Do not omit known limitations from the reproducibility report
- Distinctive: line 219
Do not fabricate software version numbers or timestamps not present in logs
- Distinctive: line 243
Add a README to the repository explaining how to obtain restricted data (if applicable)
≈ “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
Research Harness Release
Assemble the complete replication/evidence package after a successful review. This skill requires an APPROVE verdict from /research-harness-review before it will package any output.
A single human confirmation gate precedes all packaging operations.
This skill runs after /research-harness-review (verdict: APPROVE).
Quick Reference
| Input | Action |
/research-harness-release | Full replication package assembly |
/research-harness-release --dry-run | List what would be included; do not copy or create the package |
/research-harness-release --no-data | Package without processed data (for confidential data projects) |
Pre-flight Checks
- Read
reports/review_report.md. If it does not exist, stop. - Check the verdict in
reports/review_report.md. If it is notAPPROVE, stop and tell the user: the review must pass before release can proceed. - Read
study_spec.mdandanalysis_plan.md. If either does not exist, stop. - Confirm that all tasks marked
cc:doneinanalysis_plan.mdhave a corresponding evidence row (script + log + output).
If the review verdict is REQUEST_CHANGES or BLOCK: do not proceed. Tell the user to resolve review findings first.
Procedure
Step 1 — Inventory all artifacts
Collect paths for every artifact that will go into the replication package:
Source-of-truth files:
study_spec.mdanalysis_plan.md
Reports:
reports/data_audit_report.mdreports/data_cleaning_plan.md(if exists)reports/data_cleaning_report.mdreports/merge_report.md(if merges occurred)reports/review_report.md
Scripts: all scripts referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
Logs: all logs referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
Outputs: all tables and figures referenced in analysis_plan.md Evidence Ledger
Cleaned data: data/processed/ files referenced in the cleaning report (skip if --no-data)
Templates used: list only (do not copy templates themselves)
For each artifact, record whether the file exists on disk. Flag missing files as gaps.
Step 2 — Human confirmation gate
Print the full artifact inventory:
Research Harness Release — Confirmation Required
Review verdict: APPROVE
Review report: reports/review_report.md
Artifacts to include:
Source-of-truth:
[x] study_spec.md
[x] analysis_plan.md
Reports:
[x] reports/data_audit_report.md
[x] reports/data_cleaning_report.md
[x] reports/merge_report.md
[x] reports/review_report.md
Scripts (N files):
[x] scripts/clean.R
[x] analysis/main/scripts/main_regression.R
...
Logs (N files):
[x] logs/clean_YYYYMMDD.log
[x] analysis/main/logs/main_regression.log
...
Outputs (N files):
[x] output/tables/table1.csv
[x] output/tables/table2.csv
[x] output/figures/figure1.pdf
...
Cleaned data:
[x] data/processed/analysis_ready.csv [included / excluded with --no-data]
Gaps (files listed in analysis_plan.md but not found on disk):
[list or "none"]
Data access note:
[If --no-data: "Processed data excluded. Add access instructions to reproducibility_report.md."]
[If data included: "Processed data included. Confirm you have permission to share this data."]
Proceed with release? (yes / no)Wait for user confirmation. Do not proceed without it.
If the user says no: stop. Print: "Release cancelled. No files were packaged."
Step 3 — Write reproducibility_report.md
Copy templates/reproducibility_report.md to reports/reproducibility_report.md.
Fill in all sections:
§1 Software environment: read from script headers (language and package versions mentioned in comments or sessionInfo() / pip freeze output in logs if present; otherwise write unknown)
§2 Scripts: list all scripts from the Evidence Ledger in execution order. Record file name and last-modified timestamp (SHA if git is available).
§3 Data files: list raw data files (with access instructions) and processed data files (with paths). If --no-data, note that processed data is not included and explain how to obtain raw data.
§4 Logs: list all logs from the Evidence Ledger with date run and exit code (read from log header).
§5 Output files: list all tables and figures from the Evidence Ledger.
§6 Verified claims: for each key numerical claim verified during review (from reports/review_report.md §3), list the claim, the reported value, and the log file where it appears.
§7 Unverified items: list any items from reports/review_report.md that were flagged as unverified or advisory, with risk level.
§8 How to reproduce: write step-by-step instructions. Steps must be specific (e.g., "Run Rscript scripts/clean.R from the project root") not generic.
§9 Remaining limitations: copy from reports/review_report.md minor findings and from study_spec.md §7 open questions.
§10 Checklist: fill in each item as checked or explain why it is not applicable.
Step 4 — Create the release folder
Create release/ at the project root (or the user-specified path).
Copy all artifacts from Step 1 into release/ preserving the folder structure:
release/
├── study_spec.md
├── analysis_plan.md
├── reports/
│ ├── data_audit_report.md
│ ├── data_cleaning_report.md
│ ├── merge_report.md (if applicable)
│ └── review_report.md
├── scripts/
│ └── clean.R
├── analysis/
│ └── <stage>/scripts/<task>.R
├── logs/
│ └── clean_YYYYMMDD.log
├── analysis/
│ └── <stage>/logs/<task>.log
├── output/
│ ├── tables/
│ └── figures/
├── data/processed/ (omit if --no-data)
└── reports/reproducibility_report.mdDo not include raw data under data/raw/ unless the user explicitly instructs it (and it is not confidential).
Step 5 — Final verification
After copying:
- Confirm every file in the inventory exists in
release/ - Re-read the reproducibility report checklist — confirm all items are checked
- Count: total files in package, total verified claims, total unverified items
Step 6 — Print release summary
Research Harness Release — Complete
Package location: release/
Total files: N
Verified claims: N
Unverified items: N (see reports/reproducibility_report.md §7)
⚠ Before sharing this package:
- Confirm you have permission to share any data files included
- Confirm data/raw/ contents are not in release/ (unless intended)
- Test reproduction instructions on a clean environment if possible
Reproducibility report: release/reports/reproducibility_report.mdForbidden Actions
- Do not proceed if the review verdict is not
APPROVE - Do not proceed without human confirmation (Step 2)
- Do not include files from
data/raw/unless the user explicitly approves - Do not claim full reproducibility if data access restrictions prevent it — document them in §3 and §8
- Do not omit known limitations from the reproducibility report
- Do not fabricate software version numbers or timestamps not present in logs
Evidence Requirements
reports/review_report.mdwith verdictAPPROVEreports/reproducibility_report.mdwith all sections filled inrelease/folder exists and contains all inventoried artifacts- Release summary printed
Completion Criteria
- Review verdict confirmed as
APPROVE - Human confirmation received
- Artifact inventory complete with no unexpected gaps
reports/reproducibility_report.mdwritten with all sectionsrelease/folder created and populated- Reproducibility report checklist fully checked
- Release summary printed with file count and verified claims
Post-Release
The release package is complete. Remaining researcher responsibilities (outside harness scope):
- Submit the package to a data repository (e.g., Harvard Dataverse, ICPSR, OSF)
- Add a README to the repository explaining how to obtain restricted data (if applicable)
- Archive the
release/folder alongside the paper submission
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.

