Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · AI 工具

ethics-review(伦理审查)

ethics-review 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

ethics-review 是AI 工具类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在AI 工具类的 2,536 个 Skill 里排第 2,186。

总安装 294周安装 12GitHub Stars 61下载 95核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ethics-review(伦理审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins
仓库路径:skills/ethics-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins --skill ethics-review
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins --skill ethics-review

这个 Skill 是做什么的

AI 工具类 Skill 用来扩展助手本身的能力,例如接模型、接检索、接外部服务。

ethics-review 提供技术系统与 AI 应用的伦理影响评估框架,涵盖利益相关者与 harm 分析。适合建立 ethics board、制定 guidelines 或评估算法公平性,强调 beneficence 与 non-maleficence 原则。

使用时可输入项目描述与 stakeholder 列表,输出风险矩阵与 mitigation 行动计划。安装前需确认组织伦理政策对齐度,禁止将工具输出直接作为合规结论,须人工复核。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ethics-review

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins --skill e…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

ethics-review 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins --skill ethics-revi…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ethics-review 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ethics-review 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

ethics-review 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ethics-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 294 次,近一周安装 12 次,下载 95 次,GitHub 61 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ethics-review 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理AI 工具类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

AI 工具类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
executing-plans

执行计划 · Codex、Claude

1,515,336173,110只读MIT通过
verification-before-completion

完成前的验证 · Codex、Claude

1,319,472173,121权限未标注MIT通过
subagent-driven-development

子 Agent 驱动开发 · Codex、Claude

1,312,416173,138只读MIT通过
copy-editing

复制编辑 · Codex、Claude

1,209,57625,632只读MIT通过
paywall-upgrade-cro

付费专区升级 cro · Codex、Claude

1,030,17625,617只读MIT通过
ethics-review

伦理审查 · 本页

29461只读MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Ethics Review

Comprehensive guidance for ethical assessment of technology systems, AI applications, and responsible innovation.

When to Use This Skill

  • Conducting ethical impact assessments for new projects
  • Evaluating AI systems for ethical risks
  • Establishing ethics review boards and processes
  • Developing ethical guidelines for technology teams
  • Assessing stakeholder impacts and potential harms

Core Ethical Principles

Foundation Principles

PrincipleDescriptionApplication
BeneficenceDo good, maximize benefitsDesign for positive outcomes
Non-maleficenceDo no harm, minimize risksIdentify and mitigate harms
AutonomyRespect individual choiceInformed consent, opt-out
JusticeFair distribution of benefits/burdensEquitable access, no discrimination
TransparencyOpen about how systems workExplainable AI, clear documentation
AccountabilityClear responsibilityOwnership, audit trails
PrivacyProtect personal informationData minimization, consent

Technology-Specific Principles

AI/ML Systems:
├── Fairness - Equitable treatment across groups
├── Explainability - Understandable decisions
├── Reliability - Consistent, predictable behavior
├── Safety - Prevent harm, fail safely
├── Privacy - Protect personal data
├── Security - Resist adversarial attacks
├── Inclusiveness - Accessible to all users
└── Human Control - Meaningful human oversight

Ethical Impact Assessment Framework

Assessment Process

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  Ethical Impact Assessment                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  1. Describe     │  System purpose, capabilities, context   │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  2. Stakeholder  │  Identify all affected parties           │
│     Analysis     │  Map interests and concerns              │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  3. Impact       │  Assess benefits and harms               │
│     Assessment   │  Evaluate likelihood and severity        │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  4. Ethical      │  Apply ethical principles                │
│     Analysis     │  Identify conflicts and tensions         │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  5. Mitigation   │  Design controls and safeguards          │
│     Planning     │  Define monitoring approach              │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  6. Decision &   │  Approve, modify, or reject              │
│     Review       │  Schedule ongoing review                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ethical Impact Assessment Template

# Ethical Impact Assessment

## 1. System Description

### Purpose
[What is the system designed to do?]

### Capabilities
[What can the system do? What decisions does it make or influence?]

### Context
[Where and how will the system be used?]

### Data
[What data does the system use? How is it collected?]

---

## 2. Stakeholder Analysis

### Direct Stakeholders
| Stakeholder | Relationship | Interests | Power | Concerns |
|-------------|--------------|-----------|-------|----------|
| [Group] | [Relationship] | [Interests] | [H/M/L] | [Concerns] |

### Indirect Stakeholders
| Stakeholder | How Affected | Interests | Concerns |
|-------------|--------------|-----------|----------|
| [Group] | [Impact] | [Interests] | [Concerns] |

### Vulnerable Groups
| Group | Vulnerability | Special Considerations |
|-------|---------------|----------------------|
| [Group] | [Why vulnerable] | [Protections needed] |

---

## 3. Impact Assessment

### Benefits
| Benefit | Beneficiary | Magnitude | Likelihood |
|---------|-------------|-----------|------------|
| [Benefit] | [Who] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] |

### Potential Harms
| Harm | Affected Group | Severity | Likelihood | Reversible? |
|------|----------------|----------|------------|-------------|
| [Harm] | [Who] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Y/N] |

### Unintended Consequences
| Consequence | Description | Risk Level |
|-------------|-------------|------------|
| [Consequence] | [Details] | [H/M/L] |

---

## 4. Ethical Analysis

### Principle Evaluation

| Principle | Supports | Tensions | Score (1-5) |
|-----------|----------|----------|-------------|
| Beneficence | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Non-maleficence | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Autonomy | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Justice | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Transparency | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Accountability | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |
| Privacy | [How] | [Conflicts] | [Score] |

### Ethical Dilemmas
| Dilemma | Trade-off | Proposed Resolution |
|---------|-----------|---------------------|
| [Dilemma] | [Trade-off] | [Resolution] |

---

## 5. Mitigation Plan

### Technical Mitigations
| Risk | Mitigation | Owner | Status |
|------|------------|-------|--------|
| [Risk] | [Control] | [Who] | [Status] |

### Procedural Mitigations
| Risk | Mitigation | Owner | Status |
|------|------------|-------|--------|
| [Risk] | [Process] | [Who] | [Status] |

### Monitoring Plan
| Metric | Threshold | Frequency | Response |
|--------|-----------|-----------|----------|
| [Metric] | [Limit] | [How often] | [Action] |

---

## 6. Decision

### Recommendation
[ ] Approve - Proceed with current design
[ ] Approve with conditions - Proceed after mitigations
[ ] Defer - Requires further analysis
[ ] Reject - Unacceptable ethical risks

### Conditions (if applicable)
1. [Condition]
2. [Condition]

### Review Schedule
- Initial review: [Date]
- Ongoing review: [Frequency]

### Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|------|------|----------|------|
| Ethics Board | | [ ] | |
| Technical Lead | | [ ] | |
| Business Owner | | [ ] | |
| Legal | | [ ] | |

Harm Assessment Framework

Categories of Harm

Direct Harms:
├── Physical harm to individuals
├── Psychological harm (stress, manipulation)
├── Financial harm (fraud, loss)
├── Privacy harm (exposure, surveillance)
├── Discrimination harm (unfair treatment)
└── Autonomy harm (manipulation, coercion)

Indirect/Systemic Harms:
├── Environmental harm
├── Democratic harm (manipulation, division)
├── Economic harm (displacement, inequality)
├── Social harm (erosion of trust, relationships)
└── Cultural harm (homogenization, loss)

Group-Specific Harms:
├── Harm to marginalized groups
├── Harm to vulnerable populations
├── Harm to future generations
└── Harm to non-users

Harm Severity Matrix

               REVERSIBILITY
               Easy    Difficult   Permanent
S      Low     1          2           3
E      Medium  2          4           6
V      High    3          6           9
E      Extreme 4          8          12
R
I
T
Y

Score:
1-2:  Acceptable with monitoring
3-4:  Requires mitigation
6-8:  Significant controls required
9-12: May be unacceptable

AI Ethics Specifics

AI Ethics Checklist

public class AiEthicsChecklist
{
    public List<EthicsCheckItem> GetChecklist()
    {
        return new List<EthicsCheckItem>
        {
            // Fairness
            new("FAIR-01", "Bias Testing",
                "Has the model been tested for bias across protected groups?",
                EthicsCategory.Fairness, Priority.Critical),
            new("FAIR-02", "Fairness Metrics",
                "Are fairness metrics defined and monitored?",
                EthicsCategory.Fairness, Priority.High),
            new("FAIR-03", "Training Data",
                "Is training data representative and free from historical bias?",
                EthicsCategory.Fairness, Priority.Critical),

            // Transparency
            new("TRANS-01", "Explainability",
                "Can the system explain its decisions to affected users?",
                EthicsCategory.Transparency, Priority.High),
            new("TRANS-02", "AI Disclosure",
                "Are users informed they are interacting with AI?",
                EthicsCategory.Transparency, Priority.Critical),
            new("TRANS-03", "Limitation Disclosure",
                "Are system limitations clearly communicated?",
                EthicsCategory.Transparency, Priority.High),

            // Human Control
            new("CTRL-01", "Human Oversight",
                "Is there meaningful human oversight of AI decisions?",
                EthicsCategory.HumanControl, Priority.Critical),
            new("CTRL-02", "Override Capability",
                "Can humans override AI decisions when needed?",
                EthicsCategory.HumanControl, Priority.High),
            new("CTRL-03", "Escalation Path",
                "Is there a clear escalation path for concerning outputs?",
                EthicsCategory.HumanControl, Priority.High),

            // Safety
            new("SAFE-01", "Harm Prevention",
                "Are there safeguards against harmful outputs?",
                EthicsCategory.Safety, Priority.Critical),
            new("SAFE-02", "Fail-Safe Design",
                "Does the system fail safely when errors occur?",
                EthicsCategory.Safety, Priority.High),
            new("SAFE-03", "Adversarial Testing",
                "Has the system been tested against adversarial inputs?",
                EthicsCategory.Safety, Priority.High),

            // Privacy
            new("PRIV-01", "Data Minimization",
                "Does the system collect only necessary data?",
                EthicsCategory.Privacy, Priority.High),
            new("PRIV-02", "Consent",
                "Is there informed consent for data use?",
                EthicsCategory.Privacy, Priority.Critical),
            new("PRIV-03", "Data Protection",
                "Is personal data adequately protected?",
                EthicsCategory.Privacy, Priority.Critical),

            // Accountability
            new("ACCT-01", "Responsibility",
                "Is there clear ownership for system outcomes?",
                EthicsCategory.Accountability, Priority.High),
            new("ACCT-02", "Audit Trail",
                "Are decisions logged for accountability?",
                EthicsCategory.Accountability, Priority.High),
            new("ACCT-03", "Redress Mechanism",
                "Is there a way for affected parties to seek redress?",
                EthicsCategory.Accountability, Priority.High)
        };
    }
}

Algorithmic Impact Questions

QuestionWhy It Matters
Who benefits from this algorithm?Ensure equitable benefit distribution
Who might be harmed?Identify vulnerable populations
What happens when it's wrong?Understand failure impact
Can it be gamed or manipulated?Assess adversarial risks
Does it entrench existing inequalities?Check for systemic bias
What feedback loops might emerge?Predict unintended consequences
Is there meaningful human oversight?Ensure accountability
Can decisions be explained?Support transparency
Is consent meaningful and informed?Respect autonomy
What are the long-term societal effects?Consider systemic impact

Ethics Review Board

Board Structure

Ethics Review Board Composition:
├── Chair (Senior Leadership)
├── Ethics Officer (if applicable)
├── Technical Lead (understands the technology)
├── Legal Representative
├── Privacy Officer
├── Business Representative
├── External Ethicist (optional but recommended)
└── User/Community Representative (for significant decisions)

Review Thresholds

TriggerReview LevelTimeline
New AI/ML systemFull board reviewBefore development
High-risk applicationFull board reviewBefore deployment
Significant model updateExpedited reviewBefore release
Incident or complaintPost-hoc reviewWithin 1 week
Annual reviewFull board reviewAnnual
Employee concernExpedited reviewWithin 2 weeks

Board Decision Framework

public enum EthicsDecision
{
    Approved,                    // Proceed as designed
    ApprovedWithConditions,      // Proceed after specified changes
    RequiresRedesign,           // Fundamental changes needed
    Deferred,                   // Need more information
    Rejected,                   // Unacceptable ethical risk
    EscalateToExecutive         // Beyond board authority
}

public class EthicsReviewResult
{
    public required EthicsDecision Decision { get; init; }
    public required string Rationale { get; init; }
    public List<string> Conditions { get; init; } = new();
    public List<string> MonitoringRequirements { get; init; } = new();
    public DateTimeOffset? NextReviewDate { get; init; }
    public List<BoardMemberVote> Votes { get; init; } = new();
}

Responsible Innovation Framework

Stage-Gate Ethics Integration

Stage 1: Ideation
├── Initial ethics screening
├── Identify potential concerns
└── Go/No-Go for research

Stage 2: Research & Design
├── Stakeholder analysis
├── Preliminary impact assessment
└── Ethics-by-design integration

Stage 3: Development
├── Ongoing ethics review
├── Testing for bias/harm
└── Documentation

Stage 4: Pre-Deployment
├── Full ethical impact assessment
├── Board review (if triggered)
└── Mitigation verification

Stage 5: Deployment
├── Monitoring plan activation
├── Feedback mechanisms
└── Incident response ready

Stage 6: Operations
├── Ongoing monitoring
├── Regular reviews
└── Continuous improvement

Ethics Review Checklist

Pre-Development

  • Ethical impact assessment completed
  • Stakeholder analysis documented
  • Potential harms identified
  • Ethics review board consulted (if required)
  • Mitigation plans defined

Development

  • Ethics-by-design principles applied
  • Bias testing conducted
  • Explainability built in
  • Human oversight designed
  • Documentation complete

Pre-Deployment

  • Full assessment reviewed
  • All mitigations implemented
  • Monitoring in place
  • Redress mechanism ready
  • Ethics sign-off obtained

Operations

  • Regular monitoring active
  • Feedback collected and reviewed
  • Incidents investigated
  • Periodic re-assessment scheduled

Cross-References

  • AI Governance: ai-governance for regulatory compliance
  • Bias Assessment: Research fairness metrics via MCP (perplexity: "AI fairness metrics NIST")
  • Data Privacy: gdpr-compliance for privacy considerations

Resources

平台分布

Antigravity

27.36%
按下载量换算26

trae

23.62%
按下载量换算22

windsurf

17.01%
按下载量换算16

Claude Code

13.75%
按下载量换算13

Codex

8.08%
按下载量换算8

Gemini CLI

3.53%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills