Individual skill
chi-reproducibility
Use when strengthening research transparency for an ACM CHI paper — protocols, instruments, codebooks, analysis scripts, preregistration, and data availability under human-subjects constraints — so methods survive the ADR-Method screening and others can actually build on the work.
CHI-Skills/skills/chi-reproducibility/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,397
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
- data Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,806 bytes
Read excerpt
# CHI Reproducibility
Reproducibility at CHI is not "same script, same numbers." Human-subjects research
reproduces at the level of *protocol and analysis*: could a competent lab run your
study again, and could a skeptic re-derive your findings from your materials? CHI's
screening now names "research transparency" explicitly inside the **ADR-Method**
assisted desk-reject ground, so opacity is a pre-review rejection risk. The working
principle for data: **as open as consent allows, as documented as possible where it
does not.**
## Three layers, three different obligations
| Layer | What must be true | Typical artifacts |
|---|---|---|