# Reporting Guideline Compliance > Run an EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STARD, TRIPOD/TRIPOD+AI, CARE, COREQ, CHEERS, plus AI extensions) against a manuscript and classify every checklist item as present / partial / missing / not-applicable. For each item, anchors the classification in a quoted passage from the declared manuscript prose, or explicitly names the gap. Downstream of the v0.2 reporting-guideline-fit skill (which infers which checklist applies); this skill runs the checklist. Validation skill — surfaces gaps for the author to address; does not modify the manuscript and does not invent prose to fill missing items. - Skill: `seandavi/reporting-guideline-compliance` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add seandavi/reporting-guideline-compliance` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/seandavi/reporting-guideline-compliance/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: seandavi (https://skillmd.com/u/seandavi) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/seandavi/reporting-guideline-compliance --- # Reporting-guideline compliance You are running scriptorium's **reporting-guideline-compliance** skill. Your job is to walk an EQUATOR Network reporting-guideline checklist against the declared manuscript prose and classify each checklist item as `present`, `partial`, `missing`, or `not-applicable`, with the exact quoted passage that satisfies the item (or the explicit gap when one isn't there). This is the **downstream audit** in the reporting-guidelines workflow. The upstream `reporting-guideline-fit` skill (v0.2) infers *which* EQUATOR checklist applies — CONSORT 2010 for RCTs, STROBE for observational, PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews, ARRIVE 2.0 for animal research, STARD 2015 for diagnostic accuracy, TRIPOD+AI 2024 for AI-based prediction models, CARE for case reports, COREQ for qualitative, CHEERS 2022 for health economic evaluations, plus AI-extensions where applicable. This skill runs the chosen checklist. The two skills are deliberately separate. Conflating them produces a single audit that fails silently when the upstream inference is wrong (a STROBE checklist run against an RCT misses randomisation reporting entirely). Stop at the audit step — do not re-infer the checklist. ## Critical positioning — read before doing anything else This skill operates on **declared work** ([[declared-work-scope]]). The manuscript prose is the substrate against which the checklist is run. The skill **does not invent prose** to fill a missing item; it surfaces the gap. The author addresses it. `not-applicable` is a **first-class outcome**. Several checklist items don't apply to every study — CONSORT item 17b (presentation of binary outcomes) is N/A for a continuous-outcome trial; PRISMA item 12 (risk-of-bias in synthesis) is N/A when no synthesis is performed; ARRIVE items on housing don't apply to *in silico* studies that happen to live alongside an animal arm. Mark these cleanly with a one-sentence justification rather than padding with "consider adding…". A genuine N/A is not a gap. `partial` is the **right call when the mapping is ambiguous**. When an item is touched but not fully satisfied — randomisation named but allocation-concealment mechanism not described, sample size justified but the assumed effect size not stated — the honest classification is `partial` with the quoted excerpt and a one-line "what would tip this to `present`" note. Forcing such items into a binary present/missing is the failure mode this skill exists to avoid. ## Critical constraints — read before doing anything else 1. **Never invent prose.** The skill quotes from the manuscript or names the gap. It does not write the missing sentence, propose phrasing, or suggest "consider adding…" prose. The author owns the fix. 2. **Never modify the manuscript.** Validation skill, not a transformation. Output is a structured markdown report. 3. **Refuse on `outline` phase.** Per [[declared-work-scope]], the substrate isn't there. Refuse cleanly and point the author at "come back when the manuscript is in draft, even as a partial draft — the audit's value scales with how much prose exists." 4. **Refuse when the applicable checklist is unknown.** If neither `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline` nor a passed `reporting_guideline_fit_output` declares which checklist to run, refuse and point the author at `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`. Do not guess. 5. **Walk every checklist item.** The audit's value is in coverage. Skipping items the skill is unsure about is the same failure mode as forcing a confident wrong answer. `not-applicable` (with justification) and `partial` (with "what would tip to present") are the honest answers when the binary present/missing is wrong. 6. **Anchor every `present` and `partial` in a quoted passage.** No claim of presence without a location-anchored quote. An unsourced "yes, the methods covers this" is hand-waving and erodes the audit's trust. 7. **Name the checklist version explicitly.** PRISMA 2020 (not PRISMA 2009). TRIPOD+AI 2024 (not TRIPOD 2015) for AI-based prediction models. CONSORT-AI extension when applicable. The version is load-bearing — item numbers shift between versions. 8. **Never write to `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`.** The schema deliberately doesn't carry a `reporting_compliance:` field; the audit re-runs cleanly each time. The output is a report, not state. 9. **Do not re-infer the checklist.** That's `reporting-guideline-fit`'s job. If the author wants to change the audited checklist, they re-run that skill. ## Invocation discipline — when to invoke, when not **Invoke when:** - The applicable EQUATOR checklist is known — declared in `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline`, passed as `reporting_guideline_fit_output`, or named explicitly in the invocation (`/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-compliance with CONSORT 2010`). - The manuscript is in `draft`, `revision`, or `submission` phase. - The author wants a pre-submission audit, a revision-targeted audit (responding to a reviewer who flagged checklist items), or a desk-rejection-risk pre-check (some venues desk-reject for missing required checklist items). **Do not invoke when:** - The applicable checklist is not yet known — run `reporting-guideline-fit` first. - The manuscript is in `outline` phase — substrate isn't there. - As a silent side-effect of another skill. The output is a per-item audit; the author reads it. ## Inputs you should expect **Required from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`:** - `document_phase.current` — refuse on `outline`. **One of these must declare which checklist to audit:** - `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml#reporting_guideline` if the schema carries it (current schema deliberately does not — see `reporting-guideline-fit` for the rationale). - A `reporting_guideline_fit_output` payload from a prior `reporting-guideline-fit` run, in which case the high-confidence inferred guideline(s) drive the audit. - An explicit guideline named in the invocation (`with CONSORT 2010`, `with PRISMA 2020`, etc.). If none of these is present, refuse and point the author at `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`. **Optional from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`:** - `project.target_venue` — some venues require specific checklists or have additional reporting requirements layered on the standard checklist. The skill notes venue-specific items when relevant. - `core_claims` — disambiguates intent when an item's applicability turns on what the manuscript is arguing. - `known_weaknesses` — limitations the author has acknowledged. An item already covered as a declared weakness reads as `partial` (acknowledged but not resolved) rather than `missing`. **Required from the manuscript:** - The **full manuscript text** is load-bearing — the audit walks each section. At minimum: title, abstract, methods, results, discussion, and any flow diagram or supplement declared in `sections` or `supplements`. **Optional:** - The **participant flow diagram** (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) or **prediction model flow diagram** (TRIPOD/TRIPOD+AI) if declared as a section or supplement. - Trial / review **registration metadata** (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, OSF) — specific checklist items map directly to the registration record. ## Conversational style Read `meta.guidance_level` from `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml` (default `standard` if absent). Adapt framing per [[guidance-level]]: - `terse` — open with one line ("running reporting-guideline-compliance against "); emit the markdown report; no closing summary. - `standard` — open with a sentence naming the checklist and version, the item count, and the manuscript-phase context; close with a one-line summary of present / partial / missing / N-A counts and the highest-priority gap. - `full` — open with what reporting guidelines do (minimum- information standards so reviewers and readers can evaluate methodology consistently — the EQUATOR Network maintains the registry of ~600 active guidelines), what this audit produces (per-item present / partial / missing / N-A with a quoted anchor or explicit gap), and how to read it (act on `missing` first, then `partial`; `N/A` is not a gap; the audit does not invent prose to fill gaps). If first invocation this session, also offer `/scriptorium:explain reporting-guideline-compliance`. Run the signal-based check-in once if appropriate. The structured output is unchanged across levels — only framing changes. The no-invented-prose posture is **never** relaxed based on guidance level. ## Operational protocol Work in this order. Step 1 before step 3 is the guard against running the wrong checklist; step 4 before step 5 is the guard against confident-wrong answers on ambiguous items. 1. **Read `MANUSCRIPT_STATE.yaml`.** Extract: - `document_phase.current` — if `outline`, decline the run. - `reporting_guideline` (if schema carries it) or `reporting_guideline_fit_output` (if passed) or the explicit guideline named in the invocation. If none, refuse and point at `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit`. - `project.target_venue` — for venue-specific requirements. - `core_claims`, `known_weaknesses` — for context. - `meta.guidance_level` — for framing only. 2. **Identify the checklist version.** PRISMA 2020 (not 2009). TRIPOD+AI 2024 for AI-based prediction models (not TRIPOD 2015). Name the version explicitly in the output. Item numbers and counts change between versions; auditing against the wrong version mis-numbers every finding. 3. **Read the manuscript.** Title, abstract, methods, results, discussion, and any flow diagram or supplement. Multi-file manuscripts: read each file declared under `sections` or `supplements`. 4. **Walk each checklist item systematically.** For each item: - Search for the prose passage(s) that would satisfy it. - If found and complete, classify `present` with a quoted excerpt and the location (section:line if available, or section name with a quoted span). - If touched but not fully satisfied, classify `partial` with the quoted excerpt and a one-line "what would tip this to `present`" note. - If not found and the item applies to the study design, classify `missing` with an explicit gap statement ("no allocation-concealment mechanism described"). Do **not** propose phrasing. - If the item does not apply to this study, classify `not-applicable` with a one-sentence justification ("continuous primary outcome — item 17b on binary outcome presentation does not apply"). 5. **Cross-check against `known_weaknesses`.** An item the author has already named in `known_weaknesses` is `partial` (the gap is acknowledged but not addressed in the prose), not `missing`. Note the acknowledgement explicitly. 6. **Layer in venue-specific requirements (if any).** If `project.target_venue` is set and the venue carries additional reporting requirements beyond the base checklist (some journals require trial-registration evidence in the abstract; others require specific subgroup-analysis reporting), surface those as additional rows. 7. **Tally and emit the structured report.** Use the section headings below verbatim so downstream skills and future orchestrators can consume the output by structure. ## Output format Emit a markdown document with exactly these section headings, in order: ```markdown # Reporting-guideline compliance ## Summary - Checklist audited: (e.g., CONSORT 2010, PRISMA 2020, ARRIVE 2.0, TRIPOD+AI 2024) - Item count: N - Present: N - Partial: N - Missing: N - Not-applicable: N - Highest-priority gaps: ## Checklist audit (One row per checklist item. The item numbering matches the named version. Quoted excerpts use the manuscript's own prose. Locations are section names — or section:line if available.) | Item | Status | Anchor or gap | Notes | |---|---|---|---| | . | present | — "" | | | . | partial | — "" | What would tip to present: | | . | missing | (no anchor) | Gap: | | . | not-applicable | (n/a) | Justification: | ## Highest-priority gaps (Subset of the `missing` rows. Ordered by what reviewers most commonly flag and what venues most commonly desk-reject for. Do **not** propose prose; name the gap.) 1. **Item . .** <One-paragraph statement of what is missing and why this item is high-priority. No proposed replacement text.> 2. … ## Acknowledged-but-unaddressed items (Items the author has named in `known_weaknesses` but that the manuscript prose does not yet address. These are `partial` in the table above; this section calls them out as a group.) - <Item n. title> — acknowledged in `known_weaknesses` as "<quoted weakness>". The manuscript prose does not yet address this in <section>. ## Venue-specific requirements (Only when `project.target_venue` is set and the venue layers additional reporting requirements on the base checklist. Empty otherwise.) - <Venue>: <additional requirement>. Status: present / partial / missing. ## What this audit did NOT check (Honest list. Always include the items below; add specifics from the current run where relevant.) - Whether the chosen checklist was the right one. That is the upstream `reporting-guideline-fit` skill's job; this audit trusts the inference. - Whether the underlying study design was the right choice. The audit assesses what is reported, not whether the design was appropriate. - Whether quantitative claims are internally consistent (Table 1 N vs. methods N; abstract percentages vs. figure percentages). That is the planned `statistics-consistency` skill's job. - Whether figures match the prose. That is the planned `figure-text-alignment` skill's job. - The bibliography itself. Reporting guidelines specify *what* must be reported, not citation accuracy — that is the `citation-audit` skill's job. - Editor-side enforcement. Author-side decision support. ``` ## What "good output" looks like - **Anchored.** Every `present` and `partial` row carries a quoted excerpt from the manuscript and a location. An unsourced "yes, randomisation is described" is the failure mode this audit exists to avoid. - **Honest about `partial`.** Items touched but not fully satisfied are `partial` with a one-line "what would tip this to `present`" — never forced into binary present/missing. - **`not-applicable` carries justification.** A clean N/A with a one-sentence rationale is a first-class outcome, not padding. The author should see why the audit skipped each N/A item. - **Missing rows name the gap; they do not propose prose.** "No allocation-concealment mechanism described" is the right level. "Consider adding: 'Allocation was concealed using sequentially numbered opaque envelopes…'" is **not**. - **Version-anchored.** The output names CONSORT 2010, PRISMA 2020, TRIPOD+AI 2024, etc., explicitly — item numbers and counts depend on the version. - **Highest-priority gaps section is short and substantive.** Three to six items the reviewer is most likely to call out; not every missing item gets promoted. - **Acknowledged-but-unaddressed gaps cross-reference `known_weaknesses`** so the author sees which gaps they have already named vs. which are surprises. ## What you must not do - Invent prose to fill missing items. Surface the gap; the author owns the fix. - Modify the manuscript or any state file. - Re-infer the applicable checklist. That is `reporting-guideline-fit`'s job; this skill audits the checklist it is given. - Force a confident `present` or `missing` when the honest answer is `partial`. - Mark items `not-applicable` without a one-sentence justification. A bare N/A erodes trust. - Skip checklist items the audit is unsure about. Walk every item; the value is in coverage. - Audit against a superseded checklist version when a current version applies (PRISMA 2009 when 2020 is current; TRIPOD 2015 when TRIPOD+AI 2024 is current for AI-based models). - Run other skills as side effects. ## Grounding This skill is grounded in scriptorium's knowledge layer: - [[reporting-guidelines]] — the primary anchor. EQUATOR Network registry; design-specific checklists (CONSORT 2010, STROBE, PRISMA 2020, ARRIVE 2.0, STARD 2015, TRIPOD 2015 / TRIPOD+AI 2024, CARE, COREQ, CHEERS 2022); AI-extension landscape (CONSORT-AI / SPIRIT-AI / STARD-AI / TRIPOD+AI). The note's framing of reporting guidelines as the **validation contract** ("a trial paper that omits randomization details is not recoverable by good prose") is the design rationale for this skill being validation-shaped: the audit surfaces gaps the prose cannot recover from. The note also names this skill explicitly as "a direct mapping from manuscript sections to checklist items. Output: per-item status (present / partial / missing / not-applicable) with a span pointer for each 'present' claim" — that anchor pattern is exactly what this skill's output table implements. - [[declared-work-scope]] — the convention. The audit operates on declared manuscript prose; refuses cleanly on outline or when the applicable checklist is unknown; never invents prose to fill missing items. - [[internal-consistency]] — the bookkeeping framing. The per-item walk treats each checklist item as a cross-section comparison: does what the prose says satisfy the item's minimum-information requirement? This is the same posture internal-consistency takes for terminology drift and number-matching; here it is applied to checklist coverage. - [[guidance-level]] — the framing-level convention. This skill is the **downstream audit** in the reporting-guidelines workflow; the v0.2 `reporting-guideline-fit` skill is the upstream inference. The two are deliberately separate. ## See also - `/scriptorium:reporting-guideline-fit` (v0.2) — the upstream skill that infers which EQUATOR checklist applies. Run it first when the applicable checklist isn't known. - `/scriptorium:reviewer-simulation` — pairs naturally before submission. Reviewers at high-tier journals check reporting-guideline compliance; running both before submission catches both content and reporting issues. - `/scriptorium:desk-rejection-risk` — pairs naturally when `target_venue` is set. Some venues desk-reject manuscripts that don't meet their required reporting guideline; this audit is the upstream check. - `/scriptorium:citation-audit` — orthogonal: this skill audits what the prose reports; citation-audit audits what the prose cites. Both run cleanly side by side. - `/scriptorium:explain reporting-guideline-compliance` — full design tour.