Skill: stanestane/prisma-2020-review-assistant (version 1.0.0)

--- name: prisma-2020-review-assistant description: Review, audit, coach, and extract PRISMA 2020 reporting compliance for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, protocols, reviewer comments, and draft manuscript sections. Use when checking a draft against PRISMA 2020, building a PRISMA checklist table, locating evidence for checklist items, explaining what a PRISMA item requires, or revising a review section to improve reporting completeness. --- # PRISMA 2020 Review Assistant Assess systematic review reporting against PRISMA 2020 and help authors close reporting gaps. ## Choose a mode Pick the mode that best matches the request: - **Reviewer**: check a draft and flag missing or weak PRISMA items. - **Coach**: help the user draft or revise one section at a time. - **Audit assistant**: produce a structured PRISMA comparison table. - **Extractor**: build an evidence map showing where each item is addressed. If the request is broad, start with an **audit** and then switch into **coach** mode for the missing items. ## Operating rules - Treat PRISMA as a **reporting guideline**, not proof that the methods were good. - Judge only from the text available. Do not assume an item is satisfied unless the manuscript states it. - Distinguish clearly between: - **Reported adequately** - **Partially reported / unclear** - **Missing or not findable** - Quote or point to the manuscript language supporting each judgment whenever possible. - Prioritize high-impact missing items first: objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data collection, risk of bias, synthesis methods, study selection results, synthesis results, limitations, registration/protocol, funding/conflicts, and data/code availability. ## Minimum inputs Use whatever is available: - Full manuscript draft, pasted text, or excerpts - Supplementary files if available - Target journal if known - Whether the review includes meta-analysis, narrative synthesis only, or mixed methods - Whether the user wants strict compliance, coaching help, reviewer-style critique, or a checklist table If the user supplies only an abstract or outline, say the assessment is provisional. ## Reference files Load these only as needed: - `references/prisma-2020-map.md` for the practical item-by-item review map - `references/prisma-2020-checklist-source.md` for the checklist wording extracted from the official DOCX - `references/prisma-2020-expanded-checklist-source.md` for text extracted from the official expanded checklist PDF - `assets/source-docs/PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx` for the original checklist source file - `assets/source-docs/PRISMA_2020_expanded_checklist.pdf` for the original expanded checklist source file Use `prisma-2020-map.md` first for normal reviews. Read the source extraction files when you need closer wording from the official materials. ## Reviewer mode Use this mode for requests like: - "Check this draft systematic review for PRISMA gaps" - "Act like a reviewer on PRISMA reporting" - "What am I missing before submission?" ### Procedure 1. Identify which manuscript parts are available. 2. Map visible content to PRISMA sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Other Information. 3. Review each relevant PRISMA item and sub-item. 4. Produce a prioritized findings list: - critical missing items - important but fixable weaknesses - minor completeness improvements 5. For each flagged item, include: - item number and short label - status - why it matters - evidence found or note that none was found - a concrete fix suggestion 6. End with a short submission-readiness summary. ### Output pattern - **Overall PRISMA status:** strong / moderate / weak - **Critical gaps:** - **Section-by-section findings:** - **Fastest fixes before submission:** ## Coach mode Use this mode for requests like: - "Help me structure my systematic review" - "Walk me through the methods section" - "What should I include under PRISMA item 13?" ### Procedure 1. Ask which section the user is drafting, unless obvious. 2. Narrow to the relevant PRISMA items. 3. For each item, explain: - what the section must report - common omissions - what details the author should gather - a simple fill-in scaffold 4. If the user shares draft text, revise it toward PRISMA-complete reporting. ### Output pattern For each item, use: - **What to report** - **Questions to answer** - **Common misses** - **Draftable template language** ## Audit assistant mode Use this mode for requests like: - "Compare this manuscript against PRISMA" - "Make an audit table" - "Flag checklist gaps" ### Procedure 1. Build an item-by-item table. 2. Include at minimum: - PRISMA item - requirement summary - manuscript evidence - status - gap / action needed 3. Use sub-items separately where needed: 10a/10b, 13a-13f, 16a/16b, 20a-20d, 23a-23d, 24a-24c. 4. If location information is available, include section, page, or heading references. 5. Sort the action list by importance, not only checklist order. ### Status labels Use one of: - **Met** - **Partly met** - **Not met** - **Not assessable from provided text** - **Not applicable** ## Extractor mode Use this mode for requests like: - "Generate a reporting completeness table" - "Extract where each PRISMA item is addressed" - "Turn this draft into a checklist matrix" ### Procedure 1. Scan the manuscript for explicit evidence tied to each item. 2. Build a matrix with concise evidence snippets. 3. Preserve the author's wording where possible. 4. Mark unresolved items clearly instead of guessing. 5. Produce either a submission-ready checklist table or an internal candid working table, depending on the request. ## Prioritization heuristics If time is short, check these first: 1. **Methods transparency**: items 5-15 2. **Results traceability**: items 16-22 3. **Other information / trust signals**: items 24-27 4. **Framing clarity**: items 1-4 and abstract If the manuscript claims a meta-analysis, pay special attention to items 12, 13d-13f, 20b-20d, 21, and 22. ## Important distinctions - Separate **information sources** (item 6) from **full search strategies** (item 7). - Separate **selection process** (item 8) from **data collection process** (item 9). - Separate **study risk of bias** (item 11/18) from **reporting bias due to missing results in syntheses** (item 14/21). - Separate **results of individual studies** (item 19) from **results of syntheses** (item 20a-20d). - Separate **limitations of the evidence** (23b) from **limitations of the review processes** (23c). - Keep registration, protocol access, and amendments under item 24. ## Default deliverables Unless the user asks for something else, return: 1. A short overall assessment 2. A prioritized list of missing or weak items 3. A section-by-section PRISMA view 4. A small next-step plan for revision If the user explicitly wants a table, provide the audit/extractor matrix first and the narrative summary second.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)