Research Assessor

The extracted data enables systematic assessment of research transparency, reproducibility, and credibility.

When to Use This Skill

Use when users request:

• "Extract methodology from this paper"
• "Assess research transparency"
• "Extract claims and evidence"
• "Evaluate reproducibility"
• "Extract research designs and methods"
• Any task involving systematic analysis of research papers for methodology, argumentation, or credibility assessment

Core Workflow

The complete workflow follows this sequence:

Blank JSON Template
    ↓
Pass 1: Evidence extraction (liberal)
    ↓
Pass 2: Claims + implicit arguments extraction + rationalization
    ↓
Pass 3: RDMAP extraction (liberal)
    ↓
Pass 4: RDMAP rationalization
    ↓
Pass 5: Research designs extraction
    ↓
Pass 6: Infrastructure extraction (PIDs, FAIR, funding, permits)
    ↓
Pass 7: Validation (integrity checks)
    ↓
extraction.json (complete)
    ↓
Pass 8: Research approach classification
    ↓
classification.json (approach + HARKing detection)
    ↓
Pass 9: Credibility assessment (quality-gated)
    ↓
assessment/ (cluster files + credibility report + assessment.json)

Key principles:

• Passes 1-7: Single extraction.json document flows through all passes. Each pass populates or refines specific sections, leaving others untouched.
• Pass 8: Classification reads extraction.json, outputs classification.json
• Pass 9: Assessment reads extraction.json + classification.json + metrics.json, outputs assessment directory with cluster files, report, and canonical assessment.json

Using This Skill

Architecture: Skill + Runtime Prompts

This skill provides:

• Core decision frameworks (how to distinguish evidence/claims, assign tiers, consolidate items)
• Schema definitions (object structures, field requirements)
• Reference materials (checklists, examples)

The user provides:

• Extraction prompts (detailed instructions for each pass, provided at runtime)
• Source material (research paper sections to extract from)
• JSON document (template or partially populated from previous passes)

Why this separation? Extraction prompts evolve frequently through testing and refinement. This architecture allows prompt tuning without modifying the skill package, minimizing versioning conflicts.

Step 1: Identify the Task

Users will typically request extraction at a specific pass. Listen for:

• "Extract claims/evidence Pass 1" → Liberal claims extraction
• "Rationalize the claims" → Claims Pass 2
• "Extract RDMAP" → RDMAP Pass 1
• "Extract methodology" → RDMAP Pass 1
• "Validate the extraction" → Pass 3

Step 2: Receive the Extraction Prompt

The user will provide the extraction prompt for the specific pass they want. These prompts are:

Claims/Evidence Extraction:

• Pass 1: Liberal extraction prompt (comprehensive capture with over-extraction)
• Pass 2: Rationalization prompt (consolidation and refinement)

RDMAP Extraction:

• Pass 1: Liberal extraction prompt (three-tier hierarchy with over-extraction)
• Pass 2: Rationalization prompt (consolidation and verification)

Validation:

• Pass 3: Unified validation prompt (structural integrity checks across all arrays)

The prompts contain detailed instructions, examples, and decision frameworks for that specific extraction pass. Follow the prompt provided.

Step 3: Consult Supporting References As Needed

If you encounter uncertainty during extraction, consult:

Core Extraction Principles:

• references/extraction-fundamentals.md - Universal sourcing requirements, explicit vs implicit extraction, systematic implicit RDMAP patterns, systematic implicit arguments patterns with 6 recognition patterns (ALWAYS read first for Passes 1-5)
• references/verbatim-quote-requirements.md - Strict verbatim quote requirements (prevents 40-50% validation failures)
• references/verification-procedures.md - Source verification for Pass 7 validation

Schema & Structure:

• references/schema/schema-guide.md - Complete object definitions with inline examples

Decision Frameworks:

• references/checklists/tier-assignment-guide.md - Design vs Method vs Protocol decisions
• references/research-design-operational-guide.md - Operational patterns for finding all Research Designs (4-6 expected)
• references/checklists/consolidation-patterns.md - When to lump vs split items, cross-reference repair procedure (CRITICAL for Passes 2 & 4)
• references/checklists/expected-information.md - Domain-specific completeness checklists

Infrastructure Assessment (Pass 6):

• references/infrastructure/pid-systems-guide.md - Persistent identifiers (DOI, ORCID, RAiD, IGSN, software PIDs), PID graph connectivity scoring, HASS adoption context
• references/infrastructure/fair-principles-guide.md - FAIR principles framework, metadata richness, controlled vocabularies, software-specific FAIR (FAIR4RS), computational reproducibility spectrum, machine-actionability, context-dependent assessment
• references/infrastructure/fieldwork-permits-guide.md - Permit types, CARE principles integration, ethical restrictions assessment
• references/infrastructure/credit-taxonomy.md - CReDIT contributor roles taxonomy (14 roles), format variations

Examples:

• references/examples/sobotkova-example.md - Complete worked example

Step 4: Execute and Return

Follow the workflow guidance to:

1. Extract or rationalize content
2. Populate appropriate arrays in JSON
3. Leave other arrays untouched
4. Return the updated JSON document

Key Extraction Principles

Iterative Accumulation

• Single JSON document flows through all passes
• Each pass handles specific arrays only
• No merging step needed
• Flexible ordering (claims first OR RDMAP first)

Liberal Then Rationalize

• Pass 1: Over-extract (40-50% more items expected) - comprehensive capture
• Pass 2: Consolidate (15-20% reduction target) - refined quality

Separation of Concerns

• Claims/Evidence passes: Touch evidence, claims, implicit_arguments arrays ONLY
• RDMAP passes: Touch research_designs, methods, protocols arrays ONLY
• Validation pass: Reads all, modifies none

Cross-Reference Architecture

• Simple string ID arrays: ["M003", "M007"]
• Bidirectional consistency enforced
• Works across object types (methods reference claims, protocols reference evidence)

Core Decision Frameworks

Evidence vs. Claims

Evidence = Raw observations requiring minimal interpretation (measurements, observations, data points)

Claims = Assertions that interpret or generalize (require reasoning or expertise to assess)

Test: "Does this require expertise to assess or just checking sources?"

For complete decision framework with examples and edge cases: → See references/checklists/evidence-vs-claims-guide.md

RDMAP Three-Tier Hierarchy

Research Designs (WHY), Methods (WHAT), Protocols (HOW).

For complete tier assignment guidance: See references/checklists/tier-assignment-guide.md

Consolidation Logic

Evidence items with identical claim support patterns that are never cited independently should be consolidated.

For complete algorithm, examples, and cross-reference repair: → See references/checklists/consolidation-patterns.md

Pass 8: Research Approach Classification

Purpose

Classify research approach (inductive/deductive/abductive) with expressed vs revealed methodology comparison and HARKing detection.

Inputs

• extraction.json (complete from Pass 7)

Process

1. Detect expressed approach - What paper explicitly states about its methodology
2. Infer revealed approach - What paper actually does (independent of what it says)
3. Compare expressed vs revealed - Detect HARKing (Hypothesising After Results are Known) or methodological confusion
4. Generate classification with confidence and justification

Outputs

• classification.json

References

Classification guidance:

• references/credibility/approach-taxonomy.md - Definitions of deductive/inductive/abductive approaches, mixed-method characterisation, "none_stated" handling
• references/credibility/harking-detection-guide.md - Expressed vs revealed comparison, mismatch types, assessment integration
• references/schema/classification-schema.md - Complete output structure specification

Pass 9: Credibility Assessment (Quality-Gated)

Purpose

Assess paper credibility using repliCATS Seven Signals adapted for HASS with approach-specific scoring anchors. Quality-gated workflow ensures assessment viability.

Inputs

• extraction.json (from Pass 7)
• classification.json (from Pass 8)
• metrics.json (if available)

Process

Step 1: Track A quality gating - Determines assessment pathway

• Evaluate extraction quality, metric-signal alignment, classification confidence
• Output quality_state: "high|moderate|low"
• Route to appropriate pathway:
  • HIGH: Full assessment with approach-specific anchors, precise scores
  • MODERATE: Caveated assessment with 20-point score bands, warnings
  • LOW: Abort assessment, generate Track A report only

Step 2: Signal cluster assessment (if quality ≥ moderate)

Assessment is organised into three pillars (see references/credibility/assessment-pillars.md):

• Cluster 1: Foundational Clarity (Transparency pillar: Comprehensibility + Transparency)
• Cluster 2: Evidential Strength (Credibility pillar: Plausibility + Validity + Robustness + Generalisability)
• Cluster 3: Reproducibility (Reproducibility pillar: Reproducibility signal only)
• Apply approach-specific scoring anchors (0-100 scale varies by research approach)

Step 3: Report generation

• Synthesise seven signals
• Apply quality caveats if moderate quality
• Generate canonical assessment.json for corpus analysis

Outputs

If quality_state = "high" or "moderate":

• track-a-quality.md - Quality assessment
• cluster-1-foundational-clarity.md - Transparency pillar assessment
• cluster-2-evidential-strength.md - Credibility pillar assessment
• cluster-3-reproducibility.md - Reproducibility pillar assessment
• credibility-report-v1.md (or -CAVEATED.md if moderate)
• assessment.json - Canonical consolidation

If quality_state = "low":

• track-a-only.md - Quality assessment
• assessment-not-viable.md - Explanation of why assessment aborted

References

Credibility assessment guidance:

• references/credibility/assessment-pillars.md - Three pillars framework (Transparency, Credibility, Reproducibility)
• references/credibility/signal-definitions-hass.md - Seven Signals with approach-specific scoring anchors (0-100 scale for deductive/inductive/abductive)
• references/credibility/assessment-frameworks.md - Framework selection and signal emphasis by research approach
• references/credibility/track-a-quality-criteria.md - Quality gating decision logic (HIGH/MODERATE/LOW states)
• references/schema/assessment-schema.md - Cluster file and assessment.json structure specifications

🚨 CRITICAL: Where to Find Code/Data Availability

For Transparency signal assessment, code/data availability is in reproducibility_infrastructure (NOT in evidence[]):

extraction.json → reproducibility_infrastructure
├── code_availability
│   ├── statement_present: true|false
│   ├── repositories: [{name, url, access_conditions}]
│   └── machine_actionability: {rating, rationale}
├── data_availability
│   ├── statement_present: true|false
│   ├── repositories: [{name, url, access_conditions}]
│   └── machine_actionability: {rating, rationale}
├── persistent_identifiers
│   └── software_pids: [{software_name, repository, doi, url}]
├── preregistration
│   └── preregistered: true|false
└── fair_assessment (if populated)
    └── total_fair_score, fair_percentage

Always check these sections when assessing Transparency. Do NOT rely on evidence[] for code/data information.

Key Adaptations for HASS

Reproducibility = Analytic or Computational Reproducibility (NOT beginning-to-end reproducibility)

• Can others reproduce analytical outputs given same inputs?
• "Can you replicate the entire study?" (often impossible in HASS) vs "Can you reproduce the analysis?" (expected)

Approach-Specific Anchors:

• Score of 75 on Transparency means different things:
  • Deductive: Data + code sharing, pre-registration
  • Inductive: Workflow transparency, sampling documentation
  • Abductive: Framework clarity, reasoning traceability

CARE Principles Integration:

• Indigenous/community data: Appropriate restrictions do NOT penalise Reproducibility
• CARE principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) alongside FAIR

Schema Field Names Quick Reference (v2.6)

Use these exact field names. Do not improvise variants.

Evidence Object

• evidence_id (pattern: E###)
• evidence_text
• evidence_type
• verbatim_quote ← REQUIRED
• location, supports_claims, source_verification

Claim Object

• claim_id (pattern: C###)
• claim_text
• claim_type: empirical | interpretation | methodological_argument | theoretical
• claim_role: core | intermediate | supporting
• verbatim_quote ← REQUIRED
• location, supported_by, supports_claims, source_verification

Implicit Argument Object

• implicit_argument_id (pattern: IA###)
• argument_text
• type: logical_implication | unstated_assumption | bridging_claim | design_assumption | methodological_assumption
• trigger_text ← REQUIRED (array of verbatim passages)
• trigger_locations ← REQUIRED (parallel array)
• inference_reasoning ← REQUIRED
• supports_claims, source_verification

Research Design Object

• design_id (pattern: RD###)
• design_text
• design_type
• design_status: explicit | implicit
• verbatim_quote (if explicit) OR trigger_text + inference_reasoning (if implicit)

Method Object

• method_id (pattern: M###)
• method_text
• method_type
• method_status: explicit | implicit
• implements_designs, realized_through_protocols

Protocol Object

• protocol_id (pattern: P###)
• protocol_text
• protocol_type
• protocol_status: explicit | implicit
• implements_methods, produces_evidence

Classification Object (assessment/classification.json)

• paper_id - paper identifier (e.g., "penske-et-al-2023")
• run_id - run identifier (pattern: run-XX)
• classification_date - ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)
• paper_type: empirical | methodological | theoretical | review
• paper_type_confidence: high | medium | low
• research_approach: deductive | inductive | abductive | interpretive
• research_approach_confidence: high | medium | low
• mixed_methods: boolean
• context_flags: array (e.g., ["📦", "🔧"])
• classification_justification - brief rationale for classification

For complete field definitions: See references/schema/schema-guide.md

Important Notes

For testing/debugging:

• Can validate partial extractions (RDMAP-only or claims-only)
• Each pass can be tested independently
• Start with blank template OR pre-populated arrays

Expected outcomes:

• Pass 1: Comprehensive (intentional over-capture)
• Pass 2: ~15-20% reduction through consolidation
• Pass 3: Validation report (no modifications)

Token efficiency:

• Only load workflow file needed for current pass
• Schema/examples load only when uncertain
• Minimal context bloat

Quick Reference

Common user patterns:

• User provides extraction prompt + source material → Extract according to prompt
• "Help me understand this extraction" → Consult schema and examples
• "Should I consolidate these?" → Check consolidation-patterns.md
• "Is this a Design, Method, or Protocol?" → Check tier-assignment-guide.md
• "What information is expected?" → Check expected-information.md

Working with prompts:

• User provides the full extraction prompt for the current pass
• Follow the prompt's instructions precisely
• Use skill references to resolve ambiguities
• Document uncertainties in extraction_notes

Always:

• Preserve other arrays unchanged
• Document consolidations with metadata
• Flag uncertainties in extraction_notes
• Return complete JSON document

The user will provide the detailed extraction prompt for each pass. Use this skill's reference materials to support decision-making during extraction.