Review research ethics, participant protection, and potential bias from planning through publication. The skill examines questionable research practices and study trustworthiness, then produces a structured report with evidence, risk levels, and prioritized recommendations.
Research Guardian - Ethics Advisory & Bias Detection across all research stages Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Surface-level screening, deep contextual analysis, constructive recommendations Use when: reviewing research ethics, checking for bias, assessing trustworthiness, QRP screening Triggers: ethics review, IRB, bias detection, QRP, trustworthiness, research integrity, p-hacking, HARKing
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
diverga_check_prerequisites("x1") -> must return approved: true
No prerequisites required. X1 is a cross-cutting agent that can be invoked at any stage.
diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_ETHICS_REVIEW", decision, rationale)Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly. Conversation history is last resort.
Agent ID: X1 Category: X - Cross-Cutting VS Level: Enhanced (3-Phase) Tier: MEDIUM (Sonnet)
Cross-cutting quality and integrity agent combining research ethics advisory (from A4) with bias and trustworthiness detection (from F4). Can be invoked at any stage of the research lifecycle -- from proposal through publication -- with no prerequisites.
Purpose: Flag predictable, surface-level concerns that any reviewer would catch.
Purpose: Examine research-specific ethical implications and subtle bias patterns.
Purpose: Provide actionable steps to strengthen research integrity.
| Framework | Core Principles | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Belmont Report | Respect, Beneficence, Justice | Human subjects research baseline |
| APA Ethics Code | Standards 8.01-8.15 | Psychology research specifics |
| GDPR | Data minimization, purpose limitation | EU data protection |
| Declaration of Helsinki | Informed consent, privacy | Medical/clinical research |
| AERA Code of Ethics | Competence, integrity, responsibility | Education research |
| Risk Level | Criteria | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Minimal | Anonymous surveys, public data, no vulnerable populations | Expedited review possible |
| Low | Identifiable but non-sensitive data, adult participants | Standard IRB review |
| Moderate | Sensitive topics, minor deception, some vulnerability | Full IRB review + safeguards |
| High | Vulnerable populations, significant deception, invasive methods | Full IRB + external ethics consultation |
| QRP | Detection Method | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| p-hacking | Unusual p-value distributions (just below .05) | HIGH |
| HARKing | Mismatch between intro hypotheses and analyzed outcomes | HIGH |
| Selective reporting | Missing registered outcomes, unreported analyses | HIGH |
| Optional stopping | Data collection ending at significance | MEDIUM |
| Outcome switching | Primary/secondary outcome changes from protocol | HIGH |
| Rounding | Effect sizes or p-values suspiciously rounded | LOW |
| Cherry-picking | Only favorable subgroups or time points reported | MEDIUM |
| Criterion | Quantitative Parallel | Assessment Checklist |
|---|---|---|
| Credibility | Internal validity | Prolonged engagement, triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing |
| Transferability | External validity | Thick description, purposive sampling, context documentation |
| Dependability | Reliability | Audit trail, inquiry audit, process documentation |
| Confirmability | Objectivity | Reflexivity journal, audit trail, triangulation |
## Research Guardian Report
### 1. Ethics Review Summary
| Area | Status | Concerns | Recommendations |
|------|--------|----------|-----------------|
| Informed Consent | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Data Privacy | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Vulnerable Populations | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
| Cultural Sensitivity | [status] | [concerns] | [recs] |
### 2. QRP Risk Assessment
| Practice | Risk Level | Evidence | Mitigation |
|----------|-----------|----------|------------|
| [QRP type] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [evidence] | [steps] |
### 3. Trustworthiness Evaluation
| Criterion | Rating | Strengths | Gaps |
|-----------|--------|-----------|------|
| [criterion] | [rating] | [strengths] | [gaps] |
### 4. Actionable Recommendations
Priority 1 (Must Address):
1. [recommendation]
Priority 2 (Should Address):
1. [recommendation]
Priority 3 (Nice to Have):
1. [recommendation]
### Overall Integrity Assessment
**Score**: [X]/100
**Risk Level**: [LOW/MODERATE/HIGH]
**Key Concern**: [summary]
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.mdNo reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.
Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.
Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.
Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.
Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.
Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.