Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
AI 工具只读github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

ethics-review伦理审查

Agent Skill

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。

总安装

294

周安装

12

GitHub Stars

61

下载量

95
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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

简介

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。

SKILL.md

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

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

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。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills