Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Universal Meta-Analysis Codebook v2.2 - AI-Human collaboration for meta-analysis data extraction. 4-layer design: Identifiers, Statistics, AI Provenance, Human Verification. Integrates with C5/C6/C7 agents and Category I systematic review pipeline. Triggers: meta-analysis, codebook, data extraction, Hedges g, effect size
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-universal-ma-codebook/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 146% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 62% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 86% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 140% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 124% | 0% |
Version: 2.2 Status: Production Codex Review: APPROVE WITH MINOR CHANGES (2026-01-26) Update: Context-specific extensions (2026-01-26)
A universal, AI-Human collaboration codebook for meta-analysis that enables:
The Universal Codebook supports project-specific moderator layers that extend the base 4-layer structure. Each meta-analysis context may have unique moderator variables.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ UNIVERSAL CODEBOOK WITH CONTEXT EXTENSION │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ LAYER 1: IDENTIFIERS + METADATA (10 fields) ← Universal │
│ LAYER 2: CORE STATISTICAL VALUES (18 fields) ← Universal │
│ LAYER 3: CONTEXT-SPECIFIC MODERATORS ← Project Extension │
│ LAYER 4: AI EXTRACTION PROVENANCE ← Universal │
│ LAYER 5: HUMAN VERIFICATION (8 fields) ← Universal │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘| Context | Extension File | Moderator Count | |---------|----------------|-----------------| | GenAI-HE | GENAI_HE_CODEBOOK.md | 15 moderators | | Clinical Trials | CLINICAL_CODEBOOK.md | TBD | | Educational Tech | EDTECH_CODEBOOK.md | TBD |
python# Example: Configure C6 for GenAI-HE context c6.configure_extension( context="genai_he", moderators=[ {"name": "genai_tool", "type": "categorical", "values": ["ChatGPT", "Claude", ...]}, {"name": "blooms_level", "type": "ordinal", "values": ["remember", "understand", ...]}, {"name": "study_design", "type": "categorical", "values": ["RCT", "quasi", ...]}, ], extraction_prompts=GENAI_HE_PROMPTS )
Layer 3: GenAI-HE Moderator Variables (15 fields)
| Category | Fields | |----------|--------| | GenAI Tool | genai_tool, genai_tool_version, genai_access_type | | Educational Outcome | blooms_level, outcome_dimension, learning_domain | | Study Design | study_design, intervention_duration, intervention_type, control_condition | | Context | education_level, discipline, country, sample_size_total, publication_type |
See: GenAI-HE-Review-AIMC/docs/GENAI_HE_CODEBOOK.md for full specification
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ UNIVERSAL META-ANALYSIS CODEBOOK v2.1 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ LAYER 1: IDENTIFIERS + METADATA (10 fields) │
│ study_id, es_id, citation, doi, year, design_type, │
│ timepoint, arm_label_treat, arm_label_control, unit_of_analysis │
│ │
│ LAYER 2: CORE STATISTICAL VALUES (18 fields) │
│ Primary: outcome_name → se_g (12) │
│ Change-score: pre_mean_treat, pre_sd_treat, pre_post_corr (3) │
│ Cluster: cluster_size, icc, n_clusters (3) │
│ │
│ LAYER 3: AI EXTRACTION PROVENANCE │
│ Per-value: ai_value, source, method, confidence, derived_from │
│ Stored as: ai_extraction_json │
│ │
│ LAYER 4: HUMAN VERIFICATION (8 fields) │
│ verified_status, verified_by, verified_date, corrections_json, │
│ disagreement_resolved, final_values_json, verification_notes, │
│ sign_off │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Triggered by: I3 RAG building completion or manual PDF upload
Agent: C6-DataIntegrityGuard
python# C6 extracts statistical values from PDFs extraction_result = c6.extract_with_provenance( pdf_folder="./pdfs", methods=["rag", "ocr"], reconciliation="hierarchy", log_all_candidates=True )
Actions:
Output: All rows → verified_status = PENDING
Agent: C7-ErrorPreventionEngine
python# C7 categorizes by effective confidence triage_result = c7.triage_extractions( data=extraction_result, thresholds=CONFIGURABLE_THRESHOLDS )
Categories: | Confidence | Status | Action | |------------|--------|--------| | HIGH (≥90%) | PROVISIONAL | Awaits sign-off | | MEDIUM (70-89%) | PENDING | Recommended review | | LOW (<70%) | PENDING | Required review (priority) | | CONFLICT | PENDING | Required review (top priority) |
Interface: Excel Review Queue or Web UI
Critical Rule: ALL rows require human verification
Priority Queue:
Human Actions:
Agent: C5-MetaAnalysisMaster
python# C5 validates all gates pass validation = c5.validate_final( data=verified_data, require_all_verified=True, require_all_signed_off=True )
Requirements:
verified_status = VERIFIEDsign_off = TrueResult: 100% Human-Verified Dataset
| Field | Type | Description | Example | |-------|------|-------------|---------| | study_id | str | Unique study identifier | "CHEN_2024" | | es_id | str | Effect size ID | "CHEN_2024_01" | | citation | str | Full APA citation | "Chen et al. (2024)..." | | doi | str | DOI | "10.1000/xyz" | | year | int | Publication year | 2024 | | design_type | str | RCT\|QUASI\|PRE_POST | "RCT" | | timepoint | str | Measurement timing | "post" | | arm_label_treat | str | Treatment label | "ChatGPT group" | | arm_label_control | str | Control label | "Traditional" | | unit_of_analysis | str | individual\|cluster | "individual" |
| Field | Type | Required | |-------|------|----------| | outcome_name | str | Yes | | outcome_unit | str | No | | es_type | str | Yes | | analysis_type | str | No | | n_treatment | int | Yes | | n_control | int | Yes | | m_treatment | float | Conditional | | sd_treatment | float | Conditional | | m_control | float | Conditional | | sd_control | float | Conditional | | hedges_g | float | Derived | | se_g | float | Derived |
| Field | Type | Description | |-------|------|-------------| | pre_mean_treat | float | Pre-test mean | | pre_sd_treat | float | Pre-test SD | | pre_post_corr | float | Pre-post correlation (default 0.5) |
| Field | Type | Description | |-------|------|-------------| | cluster_size | float | Average cluster size | | icc | float | Intra-class correlation | | n_clusters | int | Number of clusters |
Stored in ai_extraction_json:
json{ "n_treatment": { "ai_value": 43, "source": "Table 2, p.8", "method": "OCR", "confidence": 85, "derived_from": null }, "sd_treatment": { "ai_value": 12.5, "source": "Text p.11, 95% CI", "method": "CALCULATED", "confidence": 92, "derived_from": "CI_95: SE = (14.8-10.2)/3.92" } }
| Field | Type | Values | |-------|------|--------| | verified_status | str | PENDING\|PROVISIONAL\|VERIFIED\|REJECTED | | verified_by | str | Reviewer initials | | verified_date | date | Review date | | corrections_json | json | {field: {ai_value, final_value, reason}} | | disagreement_resolved | bool | Conflict resolved? | | final_values_json | json | Human-confirmed values | | verification_notes | str | Free text notes | | sign_off | bool | Final approval |
| Field | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | |-------|------|--------|-----| | n (sample size) | ≥95% | 80-94% | <80% | | M (mean) | ≥90% | 70-89% | <70% | | SD | ≥85% | 65-84% | <65% | | hedges_g (derived) | ≥92% | 75-91% | <75% | | se_g (derived) | ≥92% | 75-91% | <75% | | pre_post_corr | ≥85% | 65-84% | <65% | | icc | ≥80% | 60-79% | <60% |
| Source | Modifier | |--------|----------| | Structured table | +10% | | Semi-structured figure | +5% | | Unstructured text | 0% | | Abstract only | -15% | | OCR with artifacts | -20% |
Formula: effective_confidence = base_confidence + source_modifier
| Priority | Source | Weight | |----------|--------|--------| | 1 | Table cell | 1.0 | | 2 | Figure data | 0.9 | | 3 | In-text stats | 0.8 | | 4 | Abstract | 0.5 |
| Value Type | Relative | Absolute | |------------|----------|----------| | n (sample size) | 5% | 2 | | M (mean) | 10% | 0.5 | | SD | 15% | 0.5 |
Rule: If disagreement exceeds EITHER threshold → Human review required
For calculated values (hedges_g, se_g), human verification means:
python# After Stage 5 (RAG building) # RAG query integration rag = RAGQuery(project_path) values = c6.extract_from_rag( rag=rag, fields=["n_treatment", "n_control", "m_treatment", "sd_treatment", "m_control", "sd_control"], fallback_to_ocr=True )
| Agent | Role in Codebook | |-------|------------------| | C5-MetaAnalysisMaster | Final validation, gate enforcement | | C6-DataIntegrityGuard | Extraction, Hedges' g calculation | | C7-ErrorPreventionEngine | Triage, conflict detection, warnings |
One-page reference with field definitions
41 columns (39 visible + 2 JSON)
Priority-ordered list of rows needing human review
Audit trail of all AI extractions
| Metric | Target | |--------|--------| | AI extraction rate | ≥85% | | AI confidence accuracy | ≥90% | | Conflict detection rate | ≥95% | | Human review completeness | 100% | | Final sign-off rate | 100% | | Data completeness (Hedges' g) | ≥95% |
bash# Initialize codebook for a project diverga codebook init --project genai-he # Import AI extractions diverga codebook import --source rag --project genai-he # Generate review queue diverga codebook queue --project genai-he # Validate final dataset diverga codebook validate --project genai-he
docs/plans/META_ANALYSIS_CODEBOOK_PLAN_V2.md.claude/skills/C5-meta-analysis-master/SKILL.md.claude/skills/C6-data-integrity-guard/SKILL.md.claude/skills/C7-error-prevention-engine/SKILL.mdCreated: 2026-01-26 Codex Review: APPROVE WITH MINOR CHANGES Author: Claude Code
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-08 | fail→pass | 10,520 | 6,478 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,178 | 5,349 | +146% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 30,287 | 30,708 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,211 | 10,044 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 22,008 | 20,784 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,700 | 8,730 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 16,478 | 2,960 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,992 | 4,029 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 13,881 | 7,301 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,862 | 5,216 | +82% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 9,718 | 12,207 | +26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,064 | 6,773 | +228% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 10,958 | 13,914 | +27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,101 | 6,516 | +210% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 10,076 | 5,159 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,074 | 4,969 | +140% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 9,733 | 7,653 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,165 | 5,367 | +148% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 15,507 | 10,339 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,728 | 6,101 | +124% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 13,379 | 14,483 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,679 | 7,121 | +166% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 10,278 | 4,103 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,136 | 4,786 | +124% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 10,921 | 5,914 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,059 | 5,222 | +154% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 11,349 | 5,225 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,334 | 5,047 | +116% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→fail | 6,747 | 3,985 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,497 | 4,626 | +209% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 10,454 | 4,675 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,864 | 4,779 | +156% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 16,443 | 15,140 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,358 | 7,392 | +120% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 13,438 | 11,714 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,570 | 6,301 | +145% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 7,613 | 3,840 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,376 | 4,563 | +232% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 10,142 | 8,154 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,852 | 5,469 | +195% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 15,301 | 10,775 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,815 | 5,897 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 13,483 | 2,425 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,539 | 4,398 | +73% | 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. 22 cases were attempted, and 21 counted toward the lift figure. The other 1 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +45 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 21 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
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.