curranthro-data-analysis — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited curranthro-data-analysis (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
CA reviewers and commentators are expert and read across every subfield, so the same results may be read by an ethnographer, an archaeologist, and a bioanthropologist at once — and for a Major Article, their critiques are published as signed Comments beside your paper. At CA, interpretation is analysis: qualitative inference is held to a real standard, not waved through as "context." This skill covers execution and reporting norms; design decisions live in curranthro-research-design.
described evidence (a fieldnote moment, an utterance, an artifact, a measurement) — not assertion.
favors yours; report where it doesn't fit cleanly. A Major Article that pre-empts the obvious Comment is far stronger when the Comments arrive.
confirming material; say what you learned from the friction.
into illustrations of your theory. Attribute analytics to communities where they originate.
just significance; pre-specify where possible; correct for multiple comparisons; validate measures; avoid conflating ancestry with social race.
you read it.
against close reading, and treat outputs as interpretable evidence, not ground truth.
For a CA Major Article, treat analysis as something that must survive not only peer review but also the published conversation around the paper. Build a comment-facing ledger before drafting results.
| Likely commentator position | Claim they will test | Evidence to prepare | Reply posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjacent subfield expert | Does this travel beyond the focal case/subfield? | boundary cases, comparative anchors, portability limits | clarify scope without retreating from the central claim |
| Method specialist | Does the evidence warrant the interpretation? | audit trail, rival reading, robustness/triangulation | show what each evidence mode can and cannot decide |
| Area or historical specialist | Are local terms, archives, or chronologies flattened? | contextual detail, source limits, translation choices | acknowledge specificity as part of the contribution |
| Theory critic | Is the concept doing explanatory work or merely labeling? | mechanism, genealogy, counterexample | refine the concept's reach |
| Ethics/community critic | Who bears the cost of the claim? | consent/provenance trail, anonymization logic, attribution | protect participants while answering the analytic point |
Distinguish article type: a Major Article needs an agenda-setting claim robust enough for signed Comments and a Reply; a shorter report can make a bounded empirical contribution, but still needs to state the limits that commentators would otherwise supply for you.
checkable without de-anonymizing protected interlocutors.
(see curranthro-transparency-and-data).
【Main claim】the interpretive/empirical result
【Evidence】what grounds it (fieldnote / utterance / material / measure)
【Article posture】Major Article / report-length contribution; comment exposure named?
【Alternative reading】named and adjudicated?
【Disconfirming evidence】included and addressed? [Y/N]
【Anticipated Comments】top 2-3 commentator objections and prepared evidence
【Quant rigor】(if applicable) effect size + uncertainty + validation
【Reflexivity】position's effect on the analysis noted? [Y/N]
【Reply-ready limit】what the Reply can concede without breaking the argument
【Next】curranthro-tables-figures| Mode | The check a referee/commentator runs first | The fix that earns trust |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnographic / interpretive | Is the claim grounded in shown evidence, or asserted? | Quote/describe the moment; name the rival reading |
| Archival / material | Are the silences and biases of the source read, not ignored? | Read against the grain; state what the archive cannot show |
| Biological / quantitative | Is uncertainty honest and "race" handled carefully? | Effect sizes + intervals; ancestry ≠ social race; validated measures |
| Linguistic | Does the transcript support the indexical claim? | Show the discourse data; tie form to social meaning |
statistical decoration; a rich case with a thin argument rarely clears CA Major-Article review.
interlocutors' dignity for a sharper claim.
../../resources/external_tools.md — qualitative-analysis, transcription, and quantitative packages../../resources/exemplars/library.md — how verified CA papers ground interpretation~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.