feat(skills): add deep-research skill

Copy deep-research skill from local Qoder installation to config repo for version control
2026-06-06 13:22:55 +08:00
parent c3ea38c045
commit f571b20598
47 changed files with 10445 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/deep-research/references/ethics_checklist.md
+++ b/skills/deep-research/references/ethics_checklist.md
@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+# Research Ethics Checklist — AI-Assisted Research
+
+## Purpose
+Comprehensive ethics checklist for AI-assisted academic research. Used by the ethics_review_agent.
+
+## 1. AI Disclosure
+
+### Mandatory Disclosure Elements
+- [ ] AI tools used are named (e.g., "Claude," "GPT-4," "Gemini")
+- [ ] Scope of AI involvement specified:
+  - [ ] Literature search assistance
+  - [ ] Source screening
+  - [ ] Evidence synthesis
+  - [ ] Draft writing
+  - [ ] Editing/revision
+  - [ ] Data analysis
+  - [ ] Translation
+- [ ] Human oversight described (who reviewed what, at which stages)
+- [ ] AI limitations acknowledged (potential hallucination, knowledge cutoff, etc.)
+- [ ] AI version/date noted (for reproducibility)
+
+### Disclosure Statement Template
+```
+AI Disclosure: This research was conducted with assistance from [AI Tool Name]
+(version/date). AI was used for [specific tasks]. All findings were verified
+against cited sources by [human role]. The research team maintains full
+responsibility for the accuracy and interpretation of all content.
+```
+
+### Where to Place Disclosure
+- In the methodology section (detailed)
+- In the abstract or author note (brief)
+- In footnotes for specific AI-generated analyses
+
+## 2. Attribution Integrity
+
+### Citation Ethics
+- [ ] Every factual claim has at least one supporting citation
+- [ ] No fabricated or hallucinated references
+  - Verification: Spot-check minimum 20% of references for existence
+  - Cross-check DOIs, publication years, author names
+- [ ] Paraphrasing is genuine (not just rearranging words)
+- [ ] Direct quotes are exact and attributed
+- [ ] Ideas are attributed to original authors, not intermediary sources
+- [ ] Self-citation is proportionate (not excessive or exclusionary)
+
+### AI-Specific Attribution Risks
+| Risk | Description | Mitigation |
+|------|-------------|-----------|
+| Hallucinated references | AI generates plausible but non-existent citations | Verify every reference against database |
+| Merged citations | AI combines details from multiple sources | Cross-check each citation element |
+| Incorrect authors | AI assigns wrong authors to works | Verify author names against actual publications |
+| Wrong year | AI uses incorrect publication year | Cross-check against database records |
+| Ghost citations | References listed but never cited in text | Audit reference list against in-text citations |
+
+## 3. Dual-Use Assessment
+
+### Screening Questions
+1. Could this research be used to harm individuals or communities?
+2. Does it reveal vulnerabilities that could be exploited?
+3. Could it be used to develop surveillance or control mechanisms?
+4. Does it provide information that could be weaponized?
+5. Could it be used to discriminate against specific groups?
+
+### Risk Levels and Responses
+
+| Level | Action Required |
+|-------|----------------|
+| None | No additional action |
+| Low | Brief note in limitations |
+| Moderate | Responsible Use statement in report |
+| High | Prominent warning + limited distribution recommendation |
+| Critical | Do not publish without institutional ethics review |
+
+### Responsible Use Statement Template
+```
+Responsible Use: This research is intended for [stated purpose]. The authors
+acknowledge that findings related to [sensitive area] could potentially be
+applied in ways not intended by this research. Users of this research are
+urged to consider the ethical implications of their applications and to
+prioritize [specific ethical principle].
+```
+
+## 4. Fair Representation
+
+### Balanced Treatment Checklist
+- [ ] Multiple perspectives on contested issues are presented
+- [ ] Minority/dissenting viewpoints are not dismissed without engagement
+- [ ] Subjects and communities are described accurately
+- [ ] Language is respectful and non-stigmatizing
+- [ ] Cultural context is acknowledged where relevant
+- [ ] Power dynamics are considered (who is studied vs. who studies)
+- [ ] Geographic and cultural diversity in sources
+
+### Sensitive Topics
+- Indigenous knowledge: Respect OCAP principles (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession)
+- Disability: Person-first language unless community prefers identity-first
+- Gender/sexuality: Use inclusive, current terminology
+- Race/ethnicity: Use preferred terminology of the communities discussed
+- Socioeconomic status: Avoid deficit framing
+- Mental health: Avoid stigmatizing language
+
+### Representation Audit Questions
+1. Whose voices are centered? Whose are missing?
+2. Are communities described on their own terms?
+3. Is there implicit bias in the framing?
+4. Would the subjects/communities recognize themselves in this description?
+
+## 5. Data Ethics
+
+### Data Source Ethics
+- [ ] All data sources are legal to use
+- [ ] Public data: Confirm public domain or appropriate license
+- [ ] Licensed data: Usage complies with license terms
+- [ ] Scraped data: Complies with robots.txt and terms of service
+- [ ] Personal data: GDPR/privacy law compliance (if applicable)
+- [ ] Institutional data: Authorized access confirmed
+
+### Privacy Protection
+- [ ] No personally identifiable information (PII) without consent
+- [ ] Aggregated data used where possible
+- [ ] Small-N groups protected from identification
+- [ ] Institutional identities protected when not public
+- [ ] Data retention/deletion plan (if primary data collected)
+
+### AI-Specific Data Concerns
+- [ ] AI training data biases acknowledged
+- [ ] AI knowledge cutoff date noted
+- [ ] AI-generated data clearly labeled as such
+- [ ] No circular citation (AI cites AI-generated content)
+
+## 6. Conflict of Interest
+
+### Types to Assess
+- [ ] Financial: Funding source, consulting relationships
+- [ ] Institutional: Author evaluating own institution
+- [ ] Intellectual: Author defending own prior work
+- [ ] Personal: Relationships with subjects/stakeholders
+- [ ] Political: Government-funded research on government policy
+- [ ] Commercial: Industry connections or product interests
+- [ ] AI-specific: AI tool company influence on research design
+
+### Disclosure Requirement
+Any identified conflict must be disclosed in the report, with an assessment of whether it could have influenced the findings.
+
+## 7. Reproducibility Ethics
+
+### Documentation Requirements
+- [ ] Search strategies documented (databases, terms, dates)
+- [ ] Inclusion/exclusion criteria documented
+- [ ] Analytical methods described in replicable detail
+- [ ] AI prompts/instructions documented (if relevant)
+- [ ] Data processing steps documented
+- [ ] Code/scripts shared (if applicable)
+
+### Reproducibility Statement Template
+```
+Reproducibility: The search strategy, inclusion criteria, and analytical
+methods used in this research are documented in [section/appendix]. The
+AI-assisted components used [specific prompts/parameters]. Researchers
+wishing to replicate or extend this work should note [relevant limitations
+or conditions].
+```
+
+## 8. Human Subjects Ethics
+
+### 8.1 Human Subjects Determination
+
+- [ ] Does the research collect, use, or analyze human-related data?
+- [ ] If yes, is the data personally identifiable?
+- [ ] If the data is publicly available and de-identified, has exempt review status been confirmed with the IRB?
+
+### 8.2 IRB Review Levels
+
+| Review Level | Applicable Conditions | Review Timeline |
+|-------------|----------------------|-----------------|
+| **Exempt Review** | Public data, de-identified data, anonymous surveys (no sensitive topics) | 1-2 weeks |
+| **Expedited Review** | Minimal risk, non-vulnerable populations, general surveys/interviews | 2-4 weeks |
+| **Full Board Review** | Greater than minimal risk, vulnerable populations, sensitive topics, deception | 4-8 weeks |
+
+- [ ] Applicable IRB review level has been determined
+- [ ] IRB review timeline has been incorporated into the research project schedule
+- [ ] Researcher has completed research ethics training (CITI or equivalent course)
+
+### 8.3 Informed Consent
+
+- [ ] Informed consent form includes research title, purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits
+- [ ] Clearly states voluntary nature of participation (may withdraw at any time, no penalties)
+- [ ] Provides researcher and IRB contact information
+- [ ] Special situations addressed:
+  - [ ] Online survey: Electronic consent (clicking "I agree")
+  - [ ] Audio/video recording: Separate checkbox item
+  - [ ] Minors: Legal guardian consent + subject assent
+  - [ ] Indigenous research: Community consent + individual informed consent
+
+### 8.4 Data De-identification
+
+- [ ] Remove direct identifiers (names, student IDs, national ID numbers)
+- [ ] Assess indirect identifier risks (department + year + gender combinations)
+- [ ] Small sample re-identification risk assessment (small departments may allow re-identification of individuals)
+- [ ] Remove identifiable details from qualitative quotations
+- [ ] Encrypt data storage with access controls
+- [ ] Establish data retention and destruction timeline
+
+### 8.5 Vulnerable Population Protection
+
+| Population | Additional Protective Measures |
+|-----------|-------------------------------|
+| **Minors** | Legal guardian consent + age-appropriate assent form |
+| **Persons with disabilities** | Assess consent capacity, provide accessible consent procedures |
+| **Students (researcher is a teacher)** | Avoid power dynamics affecting voluntariness, use third-party recruitment |
+| **Indigenous peoples** | Community consultation and consent, respect OCAP principles |
+| **Economically disadvantaged** | Compensation must not constitute undue inducement |
+| **Incarcerated persons** | Additional IRB review, ensure non-coercive participation |
+
+- [ ] Vulnerable populations involved in the research have been identified
+- [ ] Corresponding additional protective measures have been planned
+- [ ] IRB review level accounts for vulnerable population considerations
+
+> For detailed IRB decision tree and Taiwan-specific process: see `references/irb_decision_tree.md`
+
+---
+
+## Quick Audit Checklist (Final Gate)
+
+Before delivery, confirm ALL items:
+
+- [ ] AI disclosure present and accurate
+- [ ] All references spot-checked (minimum 20%)
+- [ ] No fabricated citations detected
+- [ ] Dual-use assessment completed
+- [ ] Fair representation reviewed
+- [ ] Data sources legally and ethically used
+- [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
+- [ ] Reproducibility documentation provided
+- [ ] Writing is inclusive and respectful
+- [ ] Report benefits stated audience without causing foreseeable harm
+- [ ] If the research involves human subjects, has IRB review been planned?