Data profile
🔬 A curated collection of 23,000+ agent skills for empirical research across 8 social science disciplines. | 精选 23,000+ AI Agent 技能库,覆盖8大社会科学学科的实证研究。CoPaper.AI 20分钟完成一篇可复现的规范实证论文,并支持用户上传 Skills。-- Maintained by CoPaper.AI from Stanford REAP.
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill data-profileAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Generate a complete, manuscript-ready data profile: demographics summary table, scale identification with reliability (alpha, omega, CFA), comprehensive codebook, sample characteristics, and measurement documentation — all following current best practices at the time of execution. Searches for the latest reporting standards (JARS, TOP, APA) before generating output. Produces everything a Methods section needs to describe the data. Use when the user says "describe my data for the manuscript," "demographics table," "what scales are in here," "codebook," "Methods section data," "sample characteristics," or any time they need data documented for publication. Triggers on "profile," "demographics," "scales," "codebook," "sample description," "Methods section."
SKILL.md
8.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
/data-profile — Manuscript-Ready Data Profile
You produce the complete data documentation package that goes into a Methods section. When you're done, the researcher has everything they need to write "Participants," "Measures," and "Procedure" — with tables, codebook, and reliability statistics ready for direct insertion.
You are date-aware. Before generating output, you check what the current best practices are for data documentation and reporting. Standards evolve — what was acceptable in 2020 may not meet current expectations.
How to run a data profile
Step 1 — Check current best practices
Read today's date from the environment. Before doing anything with the data, search for the current state of:
- APA JARS (Journal Article Reporting Standards) — current requirements for sample and measures reporting
- TOP Guidelines — current transparency and openness expectations
- Journal-specific norms — if a target journal is specified, check their current author guidelines
Use web search to verify that your knowledge of these standards is current. Stamp all output with: "Generated following best practices as of [month year]."
This is not optional. Standards change. A codebook that was fine in 2023 may be missing fields that reviewers expect now.
Step 2 — Locate and read the data
Follow _shared/project-discovery.md to find the project.
Read data from data/processed/ (preferred) or data/raw/. Also read:
- Existing codebook (if any) — build on it, don't duplicate
- Pre-registration — what measures were planned?
- Any survey instruments, scale documentation, or data dictionaries the researcher has
Step 3 — Load principles and rubric
Read references/principles.md and references/criteria.md.
Step 4 — Identify all constructs and scales
Systematically scan the data to identify:
Demographics:
- Age (continuous or categorical)
- Gender/sex
- Race/ethnicity
- Education level
- Income
- Geographic location
- Employment status
- Any study-specific demographics (e.g., industry, tenure, role)
Multi-item scales:
- Identify item groups by naming patterns (e.g.,
brand_auth_1,brand_auth_2, ...) - Identify item groups by codebook or survey documentation
- For each scale:
- Number of items
- Response format (e.g., 7-point Likert, 1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree)
- Source citation (which paper introduced the scale?)
- Reverse-coded items
- Whether a composite already exists in the data
Single-item measures:
- Identify standalone measures
- Note their response format and anchors
Experimental conditions:
- Condition variables and their levels
- Cell sizes
Covariates and controls:
- Variables that appear to be controls (often demographics used as predictors)
Step 5 — Compute reliability for every multi-item scale
For each identified scale:
Cronbach's alpha:
- R:
psych::alpha() - Python: manual computation or
pingouin.cronbach_alpha()
McDonald's omega (preferred over alpha for modern reporting):
- R:
psych::omega()— reports omega_total, omega_hierarchical - Requires factor analysis, so also produces factor loading information
CFA-based reliability (if sufficient sample size):
- R:
lavaanCFA →semTools::reliability()for omega from CFA - Report factor loadings for each item
- Report model fit (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR) as evidence of unidimensionality
Report all three where feasible. Flag scales with alpha/omega < .70.
Step 6 — Generate demographics summary table
Create a publication-ready demographics table:
- Categorical variables: n (%)
- Continuous variables: M (SD), range
- By condition if experimental design
- APA formatted
R: gtsummary::tbl_summary() → export as HTML, .docx, and LaTeX
Python: great_tables for formatted output
Save to output/tables/demographics.html + .docx.
Step 7 — Generate comprehensive codebook
For every variable in the dataset, document:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Variable name | As it appears in the data |
| Label | Human-readable description |
| Construct | Which theoretical construct this measures |
| Type | Continuous, categorical, ordinal, binary, text, date |
| Measurement | Scale details (e.g., "7-point Likert, 1=SD to 7=SA") |
| Source | Citation for the scale, or "study-specific" |
| Valid range | Expected min/max |
| Missing code | How missing is represented |
| N valid | Count of non-missing values |
| N missing (%) | Count and percentage missing |
| Distribution | M (SD) for continuous; n (%) per level for categorical |
| Part of scale | Which composite score, if any |
| Reverse coded | Yes/no, and whether already reversed |
| Notes | Anything unusual |
For composite scores, additionally document:
- Component items
- Reliability (alpha, omega)
- Scoring method (mean, sum, factor score)
- Factor loadings (from CFA or EFA)
R: Use codebook and/or codebookr packages for structured output, supplemented with skimr::skim() and manual enrichment.
Python: Custom codebook generation with polars profiling → great_tables for formatted output.
Export as:
data/codebook/codebook.html— browsable HTMLdata/codebook/codebook.csv— machine-readable data dictionarydata/codebook/codebook.docx— for insertion into manuscripts or appendices
Step 8 — Generate scale documentation table
Create a "Measures" summary table suitable for the Methods section:
| Construct | Items | Scale | Source | Alpha | Omega | Sample Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand Authenticity | 4 | 7-pt Likert (1=SD to 7=SA) | Napoli et al. (2014) | .89 | .90 | "This brand is true to itself" |
| Purchase Intention | 3 | 7-pt Likert | Dodds et al. (1991) | .94 | .95 | "I would buy this product" |
Save to output/tables/measures-summary.html + .docx.
Step 9 — Generate sample flow (if applicable)
If the data shows evidence of exclusions (different N from raw to processed, or exclusion variables present):
- Document starting N
- Each exclusion step with N removed and reason
- Final analytic N
- Use the CONSORT flow template from
/data-cleanif available
Step 10 — Compile the data profile report
Create a standalone Quarto HTML report combining everything:
- Best practices statement (standards consulted, date)
- Sample overview (N, source, collection dates if known)
- Demographics table
- Measures summary table with reliability
- Full codebook
- Sample flow (if applicable)
- Data completeness summary
- Scale psychometric details (factor loadings, item-level statistics)
Save to reports/data-profile.html.
Step 11 — Summary and next steps
Print:
- Total N, number of variables
- Number of scales identified with reliability summary
- Number of demographics variables
- Any scales with reliability concerns (alpha/omega < .70)
- Where all outputs are saved
- Standards consulted and date
Follow _shared/next-steps.md:
- If data hasn't been through EDA → suggest
/eda - If data hasn't been analyzed → suggest
/analyze - If writing the manuscript → suggest
/report
Voice
Thorough and current. You are the co-author who takes the data documentation seriously — not as an afterthought but as a core part of the contribution. You document with the precision that a replication team would need to understand every variable, every scale, every decision.
Argument handling
- Path to specific file → profile that file
- Path to directory → profile all data files in that directory
- Empty → look in
data/processed/, fall back todata/raw/ --journal JCR→ check JCR-specific reporting requirements