본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

statistical-consultation-protocol

Use when selecting a statistical test with AI consultation, when assumptions need checking against the actual data, when an analysis plan or decision log must be written before running anything, or when results need APA-style reporting with effect sizes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md5.3 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Statistical Consultation Protocol

When to use

Use this skill when a statistical decision is about to be made with an AI tool in the loop: test selection, assumption checking, analysis planning, or results reporting. It is the operating protocol behind booklet 008-02. The tool consults, the researcher decides, and for confirmatory or high-stakes designs a statistician outranks both. It is not for registering the analysis plan as a citable record; that is preregistration-analysis-plan-ledger, and it is not for obtaining an independent second opinion on the chosen analysis; that is cross-agent-second-opinion.

Inputs

  • The design: groups, repeated measures, observational or experimental, nesting.
  • Each variable with its measurement level and its role.
  • Sample size, and the missing data situation.
  • The inferential question, stated in words.
  • The analysis software in use.

Workflow

  1. Write the inferential question in plain words before any test is named. A test chosen before the question is stated is a test chosen by habit.
  2. Ask the tool for candidate tests, each with its assumptions listed next to it. A candidate without its assumptions is not a candidate.
  3. Check every assumption against the actual data properties: distribution as observed, variance structure as observed, independence as designed. Textbook defaults are not evidence.
  4. Record the decision log: the chosen test, the rejected alternatives, and the reason each was rejected.
  5. Timestamp the analysis plan before running it, through preregistration where the study allows it, or at minimum a dated plan file in the project.
  6. Run the analysis as a reproducible script rather than menu clicks, when the software allows.
  7. Report in APA style: the test statistic, exact p value, effect size with its confidence interval, and the assumption check results.
  8. Apply the judgment gate. Statistical significance is not substantive importance, and the written interpretation must separate the two. For confirmatory designs, hand the timestamped decision log to preregistration-analysis-plan-ledger; when the chosen analysis is contested or high-stakes, route it to cross-agent-second-opinion before results are written up.

Output

Return:

  • The inferential question in words.
  • The candidate table, tests with assumptions.
  • Assumption check results on the real data.
  • The decision log.
  • A reproducible analysis script or its skeleton.
  • APA-formatted results sentences.
  • What to record at session end: the decision log with the chosen test and rejected alternatives, the assumption check results on the real data, the timestamped analysis plan, and a one-line note for the AI-use disclosure.

Verification

  • Every candidate test in the log carries its assumptions, and every assumption has a check result from the actual data.
  • The decision log explains rejections, and no test was chosen solely because the tool named it first.
  • Effect sizes and confidence intervals appear wherever a p value appears.
  • The interpretation separates statistical significance from substantive importance in explicit sentences.
  • The plan's timestamp precedes the analysis run.
  • Before closing: the decision log and assumption check results are saved where the next session can find them, the analysis plan is timestamped before any results are read, and confirmatory designs have been handed to preregistration-analysis-plan-ledger.

Safety

AI consultation does not replace a statistician for confirmatory trials, clinical decisions, or any analysis with regulatory weight. Data leave the machine only within the consent scope, and aggregated or simulated data stand in when the scope is unclear. Hypotheses stay as written once results exist, and a tool that proposes revising them afterward is proposing HARKing.

Example prompt

"Üç gruplu, ön test son test tasarımım var, hangi analizle test edeceğime karar vermeden önce varsayımları ve alternatifleri benimle kur."

Expected smoke output:

  • The inferential question restated in words.
  • A candidate table with assumptions per test.
  • An assumption check plan against the real data and a decision log skeleton.

Türkçe kullanım notu

Bu beceri, istatistiksel test seçimini alışkanlıktan çıkarıp karar günlüğüne bağlar. Önce çıkarım sorusu sözle yazılır, aday testler varsayımlarıyla birlikte listelenir, varsayımlar ders kitabı varsayılanına göre değil eldeki verinin gerçek özelliklerine göre denetlenir ve reddedilen her alternatifin gerekçesi kaydedilir. Etki büyüklüğü ve güven aralığı olmadan p değeri raporlanmaz. Doğrulayıcı ya da klinik ağırlıklı işlerde son söz istatistikçinindir. Analiz planının kayıt altına alınması preregistration-analysis-plan-ledger becerisinin işidir. Sonuçlar elde edildikten sonra hipotez oluşturmak — yaygın adıyla HARKing — keşifsel ve doğrulayıcı çözümlemeyi birbirine karıştırır. Doğrulayıcı hipotezler preregistration-analysis-plan-ledger aracılığıyla analiz öncesinde kaydedilmelidir.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when a complete research workflow — its instructions, skills, data boundaries, and tool connections — must be assessed for portability across AI agents or environments, so each component is explicitly mapped before migration rather than assumed to transfer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Use when a Claude Code session loops, drifts from scope, claims a fix that CI rejects, hits context, PATH, or permission walls, or fails in a way another retry will not solve and a root cause diagnosis is needed instead.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Use when AI contribution metadata must match the actual workflow, when model alias and dated identifiers need auditing, when verified and fabricated citation counts feed a release decision, or when a venue's AI disclosure statement needs evidence behind it.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Use when a draft in Turkish, English, or both reads as AI-generated and needs revision that removes machine writing patterns and translation calques while preserving meaning, citations, statistics, and the author's voice.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Use when a reference list needs APA 7 cleanup, when DOIs must be confirmed real against Crossref or PubMed, when the user asks whether AI-suggested citations actually exist, or when a manuscript needs a citation hygiene pass before submission or defense.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Use when authorship order, CRediT contribution roles, or AI-assistance attribution must be recorded transparently for a manuscript, when an author dispute needs an evidence trail, or before a contributorship statement is required at submission; this skill maintains the human-attribution ledger of who contributed what and in which role (authorship order, CRediT taxonomy, revision responsibilities), which is distinct from the disclosure-metadata audit owned by ai-disclosure-auditor.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

OnourImpram/claude-code-for-social-scientists22026년 9월 6일 업데이트

OnourImpram의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고