est-reporting-and-reproducibility — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited est-reporting-and-reproducibility (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.
ES&T strongly encourages public data and expects authors to make materials, data, and protocols available through public databases, with a data-availability statement and a Supporting Information file submitted alongside the manuscript and reviewed with it. Build these as you go, not the night before submission.
file type in the SI paragraph (e.g., "Additional analytical methods, calibration data, and NMR spectra (PDF)"). Available to reviewers; free to readers on publication.
accession codes / DOIs.
resources/external_tools.md):proteomics → PRIDE / ProteomeXchange; mass spectra → MassIVE / MetaboLights / MassBank.
steps in enough detail to reproduce; deposit analysis code with seeds and pinned versions.
instructions on how to obtain it; provide what can be shared.
ES&T expects deposition in the community-standard repository for each data type, not a generic catch-all. Reviewers in a sub-field know the canonical home and notice when data are not there (confirm any volatile mandate against the journal's current author guidelines — 待核实):
| Data type | Expected repository | Reviewer's note if missing |
|---|---|---|
| DNA/RNA sequences | GenBank / ENA / DDBJ | not independently checkable |
| Omics / microarray | GEO / ArrayExpress | non-standard, hard to reuse |
| Proteomics | PRIDE / ProteomeXchange | unverifiable identifications |
| Mass spectra / metabolomics | MassIVE / MetaboLights / MassBank | spectra not reusable |
| General data / code | Dryad, figshare, Zenodo, OSF | "available on request" red flag |
For the river-PFAS study, a reviewer-ready Associated Content package (illustrative) contains:
(field blanks, 92% recovery, per-analyte LOQ), calibration curves (R² > 0.99, illustrative), and the ROS censoring detail — each item S-numbered and referenced in order from the main text.
for the bootstrap CI and pinned package versions) on Zenodo with a DOI; the mass spectra on MassIVE.
(DOI: 10.xxxx/illustrative); raw mass spectra are deposited at MassIVE (accession: illustrative)."
The test that catches drift: re-run the deposited master script on a clean machine — every figure and the 2.4 ng/L headline number must regenerate exactly. If they do not, the SI and manuscript have diverged.
cite the accession/DOI in the statement.
enough detail to repeat the work; deposit code with seeds and versions.
【SI contents】described + ordered (S-numbered)? [Y/N]
【Data-availability statement】present with accession/DOI? [Y/N]
【Deposition】data type → repository (GenBank/GEO/PRIDE/MassIVE/Dryad/Zenodo/OSF)
【Code】deposited, seeds + pinned versions, regenerates exhibits? [Y/N]
【Restricted data】justified + README to obtain? [N/A or Y/N]
【Next】est-writing-style../../resources/external_tools.md — repositories by data type; reproducibility tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md — data-availability and SI policy~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.