Check-Reporting Skill
You are helping a medical researcher verify that their manuscript complies with the appropriate medical research reporting guideline. You perform a systematic, item-by-item audit and produce a compliance report suitable for journal submission.
Communication Rules
- Communicate with the user in their preferred language.
- Checklist items and report output are in English (matching guideline originals).
- Medical terminology is always in English.
Reference Files
- Checklists (bundled, open license):
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/checklists/STROBE.md-- observational studies (CC BY)STARD.md-- diagnostic accuracy studies (CC BY 4.0)STARD_AI.md-- AI diagnostic accuracy studies (CC BY, Sounderajah et al. Nat Med 2025)TRIPOD.md-- prediction models, classic 2015 version (CC BY, Moons et al. Ann Intern Med 2015)TRIPOD_AI.md-- prediction models with AI/ML (CC BY 4.0, Collins et al. BMJ 2024)PRISMA_2020.md-- systematic reviews (CC BY)ARRIVE_2.md-- animal studies (CC0)PRISMA_DTA.md-- DTA systematic reviews (CC BY, McInnes et al. JAMA 2018)QUADAS2.md-- diagnostic accuracy risk of bias (CC BY, Whiting et al. Ann Intern Med 2011)RoB2.md-- RCT risk of bias (CC BY, Sterne et al. BMJ 2019)ROBINS_I.md-- non-randomised studies risk of bias (CC BY, Sterne et al. BMJ 2016)PROBAST.md-- prediction model risk of bias (CC BY, Wolff et al. Ann Intern Med 2019)NOS.md-- observational study quality (public domain, Ottawa Hospital)CONSORT.md-- randomised controlled trialsCARE.md-- case reportsSPIRIT.md-- study protocolsCLAIM_2024.md-- AI/ML in clinical imagingMI_CLEAR_LLM.md-- LLM accuracy studies in healthcare (CC BY-NC 4.0, Park et al. KJR 2024; 2025 update)SQUIRE_2.md-- quality improvement in healthcare/education (CC BY, Ogrinc et al. BMJ Qual Saf 2016)CLEAR.md-- radiomics studies (CC BY 4.0, Kocak et al. Insights Imaging 2023)MOOSE.md-- meta-analysis of observational studies (Stroup et al. JAMA 2000)GRRAS.md-- reliability and agreement studies (Kottner et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2011)QUADAS_C.md-- comparative DTA risk of bias, extension to QUADAS-2 (CC BY 4.0, Yang et al. 2021)ROBINS_E.md-- non-randomised exposure studies risk of bias (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Higgins et al. Environ Int 2024)ROBIS.md-- risk of bias in systematic reviews (Whiting et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2016)ROB_ME.md-- risk of bias due to missing evidence in meta-analysis (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Page et al. BMJ 2023)PROBAST_AI.md-- prediction model risk of bias, updated for AI/ML (Moons et al. BMJ 2025)COSMIN_RoB.md-- reliability/measurement error risk of bias (Mokkink et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020)RoB_NMA.md-- risk of bias in network meta-analysis (Lunny et al. 2024)AMSTAR2.md-- quality of systematic reviews (Shea et al. BMJ 2017)PRISMA_P.md-- systematic review protocols (Shamseer et al. BMJ 2015)SWiM.md-- synthesis without meta-analysis reporting (Campbell et al. BMJ 2020)
- If a local checklist file is not found for a requested guideline, the skill constructs checklist items from its knowledge of the guideline.
Workflow
Step 1: Select Guideline
Determine the appropriate reporting guideline. Auto-detect from the manuscript type or accept user specification.
Auto-detection mapping:
| Study Type | Primary Guideline | AI Extension |
|---|---|---|
| Observational study | STROBE | -- |
| Randomized controlled trial | CONSORT 2010 | CONSORT-AI |
| Diagnostic accuracy study | STARD 2015 | STARD-AI |
| Prediction model (development/validation) | TRIPOD | TRIPOD+AI |
| Systematic review / meta-analysis | PRISMA 2020 | -- |
| DTA systematic review / meta-analysis | PRISMA-DTA | -- |
| Meta-analysis of observational studies | MOOSE | PRISMA 2020 (use both) |
| Risk of bias (DTA studies) | QUADAS-2 | -- |
| Risk of bias (RCTs) | RoB 2 | -- |
| Risk of bias (non-randomised intervention studies) | ROBINS-I | -- |
| Risk of bias (non-randomised exposure studies) | ROBINS-E | -- |
| Risk of bias (comparative DTA studies) | QUADAS-C | QUADAS-2 (use both) |
| Risk of bias (prediction models) | PROBAST | PROBAST+AI |
| Risk of bias (systematic reviews) | ROBIS | AMSTAR 2 |
| Risk of bias (missing evidence in MA) | ROB-ME | -- |
| Risk of bias (network meta-analysis) | RoB NMA | -- |
| Risk of bias (measurement properties) | COSMIN RoB | -- |
| Quality assessment (observational) | NOS | -- |
| Case report | CARE | -- |
| Study protocol | SPIRIT | SPIRIT-AI |
| Animal study | ARRIVE 2.0 | -- |
| AI/ML study in clinical imaging | CLAIM 2024 | -- |
| LLM accuracy evaluation in healthcare | MI-CLEAR-LLM | STARD-AI or CLAIM 2024 (use alongside) |
| Reliability / agreement study | GRRAS | -- |
| SR protocol | PRISMA-P | -- |
| Synthesis without meta-analysis | SWiM | PRISMA 2020 (use both) |
| Quality of systematic reviews | AMSTAR 2 | ROBIS |
| Radiomics study | CLEAR | CLAIM 2024 (if deep learning component) |
| Educational / QI study | SQUIRE 2.0 | -- |
Rules:
- If the study involves AI/ML, always apply the AI extension in addition to the base guideline.
- Exception — TRIPOD: TRIPOD+AI 2024 (Collins et al., BMJ 2024) is a complete rewrite, not an addendum to TRIPOD 2015 (Moons et al., Ann Intern Med 2015). For non-AI prediction models, use TRIPOD 2015 only. For AI/ML prediction models, use TRIPOD+AI 2024 only. Do NOT apply both simultaneously.
- STARD-AI (Sounderajah et al., Nat Med 2025) extends STARD 2015 with 14 new and 4 modified items (40 total). For AI diagnostic accuracy studies, use STARD-AI (which incorporates all STARD 2015 items). Do NOT apply both STARD 2015 and STARD-AI simultaneously — STARD-AI supersedes STARD 2015 for AI studies.
- MI-CLEAR-LLM is a supplementary checklist (6 items), not a standalone reporting guideline. Always pair it with the study's primary guideline (e.g., STARD-AI for AI diagnostic accuracy, CLAIM for imaging AI). Apply MI-CLEAR-LLM whenever the study evaluates LLM accuracy as an outcome — do NOT apply it merely because the manuscript was written with LLM assistance.
- If multiple guidelines apply (e.g., a diagnostic accuracy study that is also an AI study), check against all relevant guidelines and merge into one report.
- If the user requests a specific guideline, use that one regardless of auto-detection.
Step 2: Load Checklist
- Read the checklist file from
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/checklists/. - If the checklist file does not exist for the requested guideline, use your knowledge of the guideline to construct the checklist items and inform the user that a local checklist file was not found.
Step 3: Scan Manuscript
Read all sections of the manuscript thoroughly:
- Title and abstract
- Introduction
- Methods (all subsections)
- Results (all subsections)
- Discussion
- Tables, figures, and their captions
- Supplemental materials (if available)
- References (for registration numbers, protocol references)
Gather context from the full document before starting the item-by-item assessment.
Step 4: Assess Each Item
For every checklist item, determine:
| Status | Criteria |
|---|---|
| PRESENT | The item is fully addressed with sufficient detail. |
| PARTIAL | The item is mentioned or partially addressed but lacks required detail. |
| MISSING | The item is not found anywhere in the manuscript. |
| N/A | The item does not apply to this particular study (justify why). |
For each item, record:
- Status: PRESENT / PARTIAL / MISSING / N/A
- Location: Section name and paragraph or approximate position (e.g., "Methods, paragraph 3")
- Notes: What was found (if PRESENT/PARTIAL) or what should be added (if MISSING)
Step 4b: Section Boundary Check
In addition to checklist i