🎁 Get the FREE AI Skills Starter Guide β€” Subscribe β†’
BytesAgainBytesAgain
BytesAgain β€Ί Skills β€Ί Conflict Of Interest Checker
πŸ¦€ ClawHub

Conflict Of Interest Checker

by @aipoch-ai

Check for co-authorship conflicts between authors and suggested reviewers

Versionv0.1.4
Downloads639
#clawhub
TERMINAL
clawhub install conflict-of-interest-checker

πŸ“– About This Skill

name: conflict-of-interest-checker description: Check for co-authorship conflicts between authors and suggested reviewers version: 1.0.0 category: Writing tags: [] author: AIPOCH license: MIT status: Draft risk_level: Medium skill_type: Tool/Script owner: AIPOCH reviewer: '' last_updated: '2026-02-06'

Conflict of Interest Checker

Reviewer conflict detection tool.

Use Cases

  • Journal submission prep
  • Editorial decisions
  • Peer review integrity
  • Compliance verification

    • Parameters

    | Parameter | Type | Default | Required | Description | |-----------|------|---------|----------|-------------| | --authors, -a | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated author names | | --reviewers, -r | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated reviewer names | | --publications, -p | string | - | No | CSV file with publication records |

    CSV Format

    author,reviewer,paper_id
Smith,Brown,paper1
Smith,Jones,paper2

    Usage

    # Check with demo data
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones,Lee" --reviewers "Brown,Davis,Wilson"
    Check with publication records
    
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones" --reviewers "Brown,Davis" --publications pubs.csv

    Returns

  • Conflict flagging (coauthorship, institutional)
  • Shared publication list
  • Recommendation: Accept/Recuse
  • Alternative reviewer suggestions

    • Example Output

    ⚠ Found 2 potential conflict(s):
    1. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
   Reviewer: Brown
   Author: Smith
   Shared papers: paper1
    2. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
   Reviewer: Wilson
   Author: Smith
   Shared papers: paper2

    Risk Assessment

    | Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level | |----------------|------------|-------| | Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium | | Network Access | No external API calls | Low | | File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium | | Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low | | Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |

    Security Checklist

  • [ ] No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • [ ] No unauthorized file system access (../)
  • [ ] Output does not expose sensitive information
  • [ ] Prompt injection protections in place
  • [ ] Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
  • [ ] Output directory restricted to workspace
  • [ ] Script execution in sandboxed environment
  • [ ] Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
  • [ ] Dependencies audited

    • Prerequisites

    No additional Python packages required.

    Evaluation Criteria

    Success Metrics

  • [ ] Successfully executes main functionality
  • [ ] Output meets quality standards
  • [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully
  • [ ] Performance is acceptable

    • Test Cases

    1. Basic Functionality: Standard input β†’ Expected output 2. Edge Case: Invalid input β†’ Graceful error handling 3. Performance: Large dataset β†’ Acceptable processing time

    Lifecycle Status

  • Current Stage: Draft
  • Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
  • Known Issues: None
  • Planned Improvements:
    • - Performance optimization - Additional feature support

    ⚑ When to Use

    TriggerAction
    - Editorial decisions
    - Peer review integrity
    - Compliance verification

    πŸ’‘ Examples

    # Check with demo data
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones,Lee" --reviewers "Brown,Davis,Wilson"
    Check with publication records
    
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones" --reviewers "Brown,Davis" --publications pubs.csv

    βš™οΈ Configuration

    No additional Python packages required.