Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Resources for trustworthy, fair, and ethical AI research
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-responsible-ai-guide/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 42% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 51% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 48% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 35% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 5% | 0% |
A comprehensive collection of resources for building trustworthy, fair, and ethical AI systems. Covers fairness metrics, bias detection and mitigation, explainability methods, privacy-preserving techniques, robustness testing, and governance frameworks. Essential reading for researchers working on AI safety, alignment, and deploying models in high-stakes domains.
Responsible AI
├── Fairness
│ ├── Bias detection (data, model, outcome)
│ ├── Fairness metrics (demographic parity, equalized odds)
│ ├── Bias mitigation (pre/in/post-processing)
│ └── Intersectional fairness
├── Explainability
│ ├── Feature attribution (SHAP, LIME, IG)
│ ├── Concept-based (TCAV, concept bottleneck)
│ ├── Counterfactual explanations
│ └── Mechanistic interpretability
├── Privacy
│ ├── Differential privacy
│ ├── Federated learning
│ ├── Membership inference attacks
│ └── Machine unlearning
├── Robustness
│ ├── Adversarial attacks/defenses
│ ├── Distribution shift
│ ├── Uncertainty quantification
│ └── Out-of-distribution detection
├── Safety & Alignment
│ ├── RLHF and preference learning
│ ├── Constitutional AI
│ ├── Red teaming
│ └── Guardrails and filters
└── Governance
├── Model cards
├── Datasheets for datasets
├── AI impact assessments
└── Regulatory compliance (EU AI Act)| Tool | Category | Purpose | |------|----------|---------| | Fairlearn | Fairness | Bias assessment + mitigation | | AI Fairness 360 | Fairness | IBM fairness toolkit | | SHAP | Explainability | Shapley value explanations | | Captum | Explainability | PyTorch interpretability | | Opacus | Privacy | Differential privacy for PyTorch | | ART | Robustness | Adversarial robustness toolbox | | Alibi | Explainability | ML model explanations |
pythonfrom fairlearn.metrics import MetricFrame from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, recall_score # Assess fairness across demographic groups metrics = MetricFrame( metrics={ "accuracy": accuracy_score, "recall": recall_score, }, y_true=y_test, y_pred=y_pred, sensitive_features=demographics, ) print("Overall:") print(metrics.overall) print("\nBy group:") print(metrics.by_group) print("\nDifference (max - min):") print(metrics.difference())
markdown### Foundations 1. "Fairness and Machine Learning" (Barocas, Hardt, Narayanan) 2. "Datasheets for Datasets" (Gebru et al., 2021) 3. "Model Cards for Model Reporting" (Mitchell et al., 2019) ### Fairness 4. "On Fairness and Calibration" (Pleiss et al., 2017) 5. "Fairness Through Awareness" (Dwork et al., 2012) ### Explainability 6. "A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions" (SHAP) 7. "Why Should I Trust You?" (LIME, Ribeiro et al., 2016) ### Safety 8. "Constitutional AI" (Bai et al., 2022) 9. "Red Teaming Language Models" (Perez et al., 2022) 10. "Scaling Monosemanticity" (Anthropic, 2024)
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 12,825 | 12,710 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,503 | 3,562 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 21,632 | 18,589 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,809 | 4,269 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 11,447 | 11,268 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,928 | 2,902 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 12,334 | 13,056 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,070 | 3,062 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 13,618 | 12,937 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,363 | 3,182 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 21,345 | 16,085 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,514 | 3,684 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 3,779 | 4,291 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 627 | 1,592 | +154% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 4,691 | 5,187 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 747 | 1,772 | +137% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 18,027 | 20,651 | +15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,973 | 4,498 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 6,521 | 4,090 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 996 | 1,506 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 4,535 | 4,505 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 775 | 1,671 | +116% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 5,424 | 4,956 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 839 | 1,620 | +93% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 4,600 | 3,869 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 719 | 1,532 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 6,231 | 3,601 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 880 | 1,412 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 7,371 | 2,608 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,099 | 1,302 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 7,538 | 2,486 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,102 | 1,334 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 5,820 | 5,633 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 893 | 1,813 | +103% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 8,269 | 3,153 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,268 | 1,464 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 4,311 | 6,203 | +44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 748 | 2,003 | +168% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 8,669 | 6,269 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,529 | 2,034 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 7,240 | 7,946 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,178 | 2,317 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 7,099 | 5,424 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,258 | 1,868 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 11,723 | 10,389 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,386 | 2,973 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 13,716 | 15,985 | +17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,370 | 3,768 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-25 | pass→pass | 11,718 | 10,818 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,382 | 3,082 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 25 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +4 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 25 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.