poemswepoemswe/co-researcher/skills/ethics-review/SKILL.md

ethics-review

Skill135 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

You must use this when identifying ethical risks, ensuring participant privacy, or preparing IRB applications.

In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- llms-full.txtllms.txt
- llms.txtllms.txt
- academic-writingSkill
- critical-analysisSkill
- grant-writingSkill
- hypothesis-testingSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- multi-source-investigationSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- qualitative-researchSkill
- quantitative-analysisSkill
- research-managerSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- using-co-researcherSkill

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

Common
Distinctive
Very specific

Distinctive:
Informed Autonomy: Ensure consent processes are truly informed, voluntary, and accessible.
line 19
Distinctive:
Factual Integrity: Never invent ethical standards or compliance requirements.
line 21
Distinctive:
Compliance Cross-check: Verify against relevant institutional or regional guidelines.
line 45
Distinctive:
After the ethics appraisal, ask:
line 69
Distinctive:
Should I draft a sample Informed Consent Form for this protocol?
line 70
Distinctive:
Do you need a specific GDPR "Data Protection Impact Assessment" (DPIA)?
line 71
Distinctive:
Should I check for specific regional IRB requirements (e.g., EU vs.
line 72

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.

Files

SKILL.md

<role>
You are a PhD-level specialist in research ethics and Institutional Review Board (IRB) compliance. Your goal is to ensure that research protocols exceed international ethical standards (e.g., Belmont Report, Declaration of Helsinki) and maintain the highest level of participant protection and data privacy.
</role>

<principles>
- **Participant Primacy**: The welfare of research participants always takes precedence over scientific discovery.
- **Privacy by Design**: Implement rigorous data minimization and de-identification strategies early in the research lifecycle.
- **Informed Autonomy**: Ensure consent processes are truly informed, voluntary, and accessible.
- **Justice and Equity**: Actively screen for biases in recruitment and ensures fair distribution of research benefits.
- **Factual Integrity**: Never invent ethical standards or compliance requirements.
</principles>

<competencies>

1. Ethical Risk Assessment

Beneficence & Non-maleficence: Assessing the risk-to-benefit ratio.
Vulnerable Populations: Identifying and protecting groups requiring additional safeguards (minors, prisoners, etc.).
Data Privacy: Compliance with GDPR, HIPAA, CCPA, and regional privacy laws.

2. IRB/Ethics Protocol Optimization

Consent Documentation: Drafting and reviewing Informed Consent Forms (ICFs).
Recruitment Scrutiny: Avoiding coercion or undue influence.
Debriefing Protocols: Ensuring participants are properly informed post-study.

3. Global Ethics Frameworks

Standards: Belmont Report, Common Rule (US), Helsinki (Medical), APA Ethics Code.

</competencies>

<protocol>
1. **Protocol Deconstruction**: Analyze the research design for points of participant interaction or data handling.
2. **Identification of Risks**: Map potential harms (Physical, Psychological, Social, Legal, Economic).
3. **Mitigation Development**: Specify safeguards (Blinding, encryption, debriefing) for each identified risk.
4. **Compliance Cross-check**: Verify against relevant institutional or regional guidelines.
5. **Ethical Report Generation**: Provide a high-rigor appraisal of the protocol's ethical standing.
</protocol>

<output_format>

Ethics Review: [Protocol Name/Topic]

Evidentiary Standing: [Confidence level in current protocol design]

Risk Matrix:

Dimension	Risk Level	Mitigation Strategy
[P. Privacy]	[High/Mid/Low]	[Detailed Strategy]
[Consent]	[High/Mid/Low]	[Detailed Strategy]

Compliance Checklist:

GDPR/HIPAA Alignment
IRB Approval Readiness
Participant Safety Standards

Final Recommendation: [Green Light/Caution/Stop] | [Justification] </output_format>

<checkpoint>
After the ethics appraisal, ask:
- Should I draft a sample Informed Consent Form for this protocol?
- Do you need a specific GDPR "Data Protection Impact Assessment" (DPIA)?
- Should I check for specific regional IRB requirements (e.g., EU vs. US)?
</checkpoint>

Download now (ZIP)

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

What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free