跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

i2

Screen research papers against a research question using six scoring dimensions. Choose criteria for a broad knowledge collection or a systematic review, then receive inclusion, exclusion, and human-review lists with evidence quotes checked against abstracts.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Screening Assistant - AI-PRISMA 6-dimension screening with Groq LLM (100x cheaper) Supports two project types with different confidence thresholds Use when: screening papers, PRISMA screening, inclusion/exclusion criteria Triggers: screen papers, PRISMA screening, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, AI screening

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Screen papers for a systematic review
  • Build a broad collection of relevant literature
  • Review and approve inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Check papers with uncertain or unsupported evidence

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md6.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

⛔ Prerequisites (v8.2 — MCP Enforcement)

diverga_check_prerequisites("i2") → must return approved: true If not approved → AskUserQuestion for each missing checkpoint (see .claude/references/checkpoint-templates.md)

Checkpoints During Execution

  • 🔴 SCH_SCREENING_CRITERIA → diverga_mark_checkpoint("SCH_SCREENING_CRITERIA", decision, rationale)

Fallback (MCP unavailable)

Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.


I2-ScreeningAssistant

Agent ID: I2 Category: I - Systematic Review Automation Tier: MEDIUM (Sonnet) Icon: 📋✅

Overview

Executes AI-assisted PRISMA 2020 screening using a 6-dimension rubric. Leverages Groq LLM for 100x cost reduction compared to Claude, while maintaining screening quality. Supports two project types with different confidence thresholds.

Cost Comparison

ProviderModelCost per 100 papersQuality
Groq (Default)llama-3.3-70b$0.01Excellent
Groqqwen-qwq-32b$0.008Good
Claudeclaude-haiku-4-5$0.15Excellent
Claudeclaude-sonnet-3-5$0.45Best
Ollamallama3.2:70b$0Good (local)

Recommendation: Use Groq for screening. Switch to Claude only for complex edge cases.

Input Schema

Required:
  - project_path: "string"
  - research_question: "string"
  - project_type: "enum[knowledge_repository, systematic_review]"

Optional:
  - llm_provider: "enum[groq, claude, ollama]"
  - custom_criteria: "object"
  - max_workers: "int"
  - batch_size: "int"

Output Schema

main_output:
  stage: "prisma_screening"
  project_type: "string"
  threshold: "int"
  llm_provider: "string"
  model: "string"
  results:
    total_screened: "int"
    auto_included: "int"
    auto_excluded: "int"
    human_review: "int"
  cost:
    input_tokens: "int"
    output_tokens: "int"
    total_cost: "string"
  output_files:
    relevant_papers: "string"
    excluded_papers: "string"
    human_review: "string"

Project Types

knowledge_repository

  • Threshold: 50% confidence (score ≥ 25)
  • Expected output: 5,000-15,000 papers
  • Use case: Teaching materials, AI research assistant, domain exploration
  • Screening behavior: Lenient, removes only spam/off-topic

systematic_review

  • Threshold: 90% confidence (score ≥ 40)
  • Expected output: 50-300 papers
  • Use case: Meta-analysis, journal publication, clinical guidelines
  • Screening behavior: Strict PRISMA 2020 criteria

Human Checkpoint Protocol

🔴 SCH_SCREENING_CRITERIA (REQUIRED)

Before executing screening, I2 MUST:

  1. PRESENT screening criteria:

    AI-PRISMA 6-Dimension Screening Criteria
    
    Project Type: {knowledge_repository | systematic_review}
    Threshold: {50% | 90%} confidence
    
    Scoring Rubric:
    1. DOMAIN (0-10): Target population/context relevance
    2. INTERVENTION (0-10): Technology/tool focus
    3. METHOD (0-5): Study design rigor
    4. OUTCOMES (0-10): Measured results clarity
    5. EXCLUSION (-20 to 0): Penalties for wrong domain/review
    6. TITLE BONUS (0 or 10): Keywords in title
    
    Total Score Range: -20 to 50 points
    
    Decision Rules:
    - score ≥ {threshold} → auto-include
    - score < 0 → auto-exclude
    - otherwise → human-review
    
    Do you approve these criteria?
    
  2. WAIT for explicit approval

  3. CONFIRM before executing screening

Execution Commands

# Project path (set to your working directory)
cd "$(pwd)"

# Set LLM provider (v1.2.6: Groq default)
export LLM_PROVIDER=groq
export GROQ_API_KEY={api_key}

# Execute screening
python scripts/03_screen_papers.py \
  --project {project_path} \
  --question "{research_question}" \
  --max-workers 8 \
  --batch-size 50

AI-PRISMA Scoring System

Domain Score (0-10)

  • 10 = Direct match to research question
  • 7-9 = Strong overlap
  • 4-6 = Partial relevance
  • 1-3 = Tangential
  • 0 = Unrelated

Intervention Score (0-10)

  • 10 = Primary focus of study
  • 7-9 = Major component
  • 4-6 = Mentioned
  • 1-3 = Vague reference
  • 0 = Absent

Method Score (0-5)

  • 5 = RCT/experimental
  • 4 = Quasi-experimental
  • 3 = Mixed methods/survey
  • 2 = Qualitative
  • 1 = Descriptive
  • 0 = Theory/opinion

Outcomes Score (0-10)

  • 10 = Explicit + rigorous measurement
  • 7-9 = Clear outcomes
  • 4-6 = Mentioned
  • 1-3 = Implied
  • 0 = None

Exclusion Penalties (-20 to 0)

  • -20 = Wrong domain
  • -15 = Wrong population
  • -10 = Review/editorial
  • -5 = Abstract only
  • 0 = No penalties

Title Bonus (0 or 10)

  • 10 = Both domain AND intervention in title
  • 0 = Missing keywords

Hallucination Detection

I2 validates AI evidence quotes against abstracts:

def validate_evidence_grounding(quotes, abstract):
    """Flag potential hallucinations"""
    for quote in quotes:
        if quote.lower() not in abstract.lower():
            return False, "FLAGGED: Potential hallucination"
    return True, None

Papers with hallucinated evidence are routed to human review.

Auto-Trigger Keywords

Keywords (EN)Keywords (KR)Action
screen papers, PRISMA screening논문 스크리닝, 선별Activate I2
inclusion criteria, exclusion포함 기준, 제외 기준Activate I2
AI screening, automated screeningAI 스크리닝Activate I2

Integration with B2

I2 can call B2-evidence-quality-appraiser for deeper quality assessment:

Task(
    subagent_type="diverga:b2",
    model="sonnet",
    prompt="""
    Assess quality of included papers using:
    - Risk of Bias (RoB) for RCTs
    - Newcastle-Ottawa for observational
    - GRADE for overall evidence quality
    """
)

Dependencies

requires: ["I1-paper-retrieval-agent"]
sequential_next: ["I3-rag-builder"]
parallel_compatible: ["B2-evidence-quality-appraiser"]

Related Agents

  • I0-review-pipeline-orchestrator: Pipeline coordination
  • I1-paper-retrieval-agent: Paper fetching
  • I3-rag-builder: RAG system building
  • B2-evidence-quality-appraiser: Quality assessment

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

a1

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

a2

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

a5

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题