experiment-audit

Audits per-claim experimental methodology integrity using cross-model LLM review.

75|7|Updated May 2, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/zjunlp/Mechanist --skill experiment-audit-zjunlp
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: experiment-audit
Source: https://github.com/zjunlp/Mechanist/tree/main/skills/experiment-audit
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/zjunlp/Mechanist --skill experiment-audit-zjunlp

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? LLM agents running experiments can silently produce fraudulent results — fake ground truth derived from model outputs, self-normalized scores inflated to 0.99, phantom numbers from nonexistent files, or tiny pilots reported as comprehensive evaluations. This Skill adds an independent integrity check that catches these failure modes before results reach a paper. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Six-Check Audit (A–F): Verifies ground-truth provenance, score normalization, result-file existence and number consistency, dead metric code, scope-vs-claims alignment, and evaluation-type classification. - Cross-Model Reviewer Independence: The executor only collects file paths; an external LLM reviewer (via llm-chat MCP) reads the code and issues the PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict, preventing self-grading. - Per-Claim Scoping: Each invocation audits one claim's linked milestones from EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md and EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md, producing EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.md and EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.json. - Use Case: After running experiments for claim C1 of a mechanistic interpretability study, invoke the audit to confirm C1's evaluation used real dataset ground truth and that every reported number matches an actual result file. ## Quick Start Run the experiment audit on the refine-logs directory for claim C1 and write the report to the claim's audit output directory.

Frequently Asked Questions about experiment-audit

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I audit LLM agent experiment results for fraud?

Invoke the audit with the experiment directory and a claim ID, for example with refine-logs and claim C1. The executor collects file paths for that claim's milestones, and an external LLM reviewer checks ground-truth provenance, score normalization, and result-file existence, returning a PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict.

What does the experiment integrity audit check?

It runs six checks: ground-truth provenance, score normalization, result-file existence and number matching, dead metric code, scope-versus-claims assessment, and evaluation-type classification. Each check reports PASS, WARN, or FAIL with file:line evidence.

How is the external reviewer model configured?

The reviewer model resolves from LLM_MODEL, LLM_BASE_URL, and LLM_API_KEY in priority order: project .mcp.json, then user ~/.claude/settings.json, then shell environment. If none provide a model, the skill aborts rather than guessing a default.

Does the audit block the research pipeline on failure?

No, the audit never blocks the pipeline. On FAIL it prints an alert and tags the claim with an integrity concern, while downstream skills like result-to-claim and paper-write read the verdict and annotate affected claims.

What is the difference between experiment-audit and result-to-claim?

experiment-audit judges whether the evaluation methodology and reporting are honest, producing an integrity verdict. result-to-claim separately judges whether the numbers semantically support the claim's hypothesis, and the two verdicts are combined downstream.