Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cscw-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the empirical work behind a CSCW paper — interview and ethnographic rigor, trace and log analysis, surveys, deployments, and mixed methods — matching each method's own validity standard and the ethics of studying real communities.
Passed 19 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 23 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
7 fixed12 passed either way4 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We posted a link to our survey on Twitter and Reddit, receiving 450 complete responses from software engineers. We plan to describe our sample as representative of global software developers. What reviewer objections should we prepare for, and how should we describe our sampling strategy?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Flags generalizing a convenience sample to global developers as a major review risk. | Passed | Passed |
| Requires defining the sampling frame relative to the claimed population. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
"Experiments" is the wrong word for most CSCW evidence, and that is the point. The venue is deliberately methods-pluralist: interview studies, ethnography, large-scale trace analysis, surveys, field deployments, controlled experiments, and mixed designs all publish here — each judged by its own tradition's standard of rigor, not by a quantitative default. The commonest reviewing disaster is a paper that borrows a method without its discipline.
| Method | What rigor means here | What reviewers flag |
|---|---|---|
| Interviews | Purposeful sampling with a rationale; saturation or a defended stopping rule; a described analysis process (coding approach, memoing, disagreement handling) | "We interviewed 12 people and themes emerged" with no analytic trail |
| Ethnography / field observation | Duration and depth of engagement; researcher's relationship to the setting; thick description that earns the interpretation | Drive-by observation labeled ethnography |
| Trace / log analysis | Construct validity (does the log field measure the practice claimed?); an identification strategy for any causal wording; robustness to platform quirks (bots, deleted content, API sampling) | Correlational results narrated causally; metrics inherited from the platform unexamined |
| Surveys | Instrument provenance or validation; sampling frame vs. claimed population; nonresponse handling | Convenience sample generalized to "users" |
| Deployments / experiments | Genuine group-level conditions; power analysis where inference is statistical; contamination between conditions addressed | N = groups treated as N = individuals |
| Mixed methods | An explicit integration logic — which strand leads, which bounds, where they may disagree | Two mini-studies stapled together, each too thin to stand |
Two pluralism rules cut across all rows:
test cases passed, vs 12 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.