Mel Framework Citation

gasserane/personal-skills/skills/mel-framework-citation

作者 gasseranea22368a1505356d9815ee7aa7ffd65f0afeb5bad无许可证收录于 2026年10月9日更新于 2026年10月9日

Enforce the IPPF/UNFPA/UNAIDS evidence-and-rigour citation standard on MEL/SRHR output: injects current authoritative framework versions with author and year, flags outdated versions, applies the data-gap protocol, and places citations tier-aware (Tier 1 evidence-base line, Tier 2 inline, junior-MEL annotated). Use whenever Ane produces a theory of change, evaluation design, indicator set, donor report, or SRHR programme analysis. Do not use for non-MEL work.

AI 生成的概览

对监测评估与性生殖健康权利成果强制执行引用与证据标准,并按受众层级安排引用位置。

功能
该技能将一套固定的引用标准应用于监测、评估与学习(MEL)以及性健康与生殖健康权利(SRHR)成果。它把所引用的框架和指标与给定的现行权威版本清单进行比对,标记过时版本和无来源的论断,并要求指标集按年龄、性别认同、残障状况和地理分层进行拆分。它还规定不同受众层级下引用的放置方式,以及来源的核验与列示方法。
适用场景
在产出变革理论、评估设计、指标框架、资助方报告或项目分析等 MEL 或 SRHR 成果时使用。不适用于非 MEL 文档或一般性通信。
运行要求
仅为指令,不含脚本。它期望提示中说明受众层级,未说明时默认 Tier 1,并引用外部标准文件与用于领域标准的 wiki 路径。它要求通过网络搜索或抓取来核验来源版本和出版方规范网址,因此该核验步骤需要网络访问。

MEL Framework Citation

Applies Ane's non-negotiable MEL/SRHR citation standard from CLAUDE.md. Generic framework references are a quality failure. This skill prevents that. Citation rigour is constant across audience tiers; placement varies by tier per CLAUDE.md "Audience tiers and register".

When to use

Trigger whenever the output is an MEL or SRHR deliverable: theory of change, evaluation design, indicator framework, donor report, programme analysis, decolonial or feminist evaluation note, OECD-DAC review, participatory method recommendation, SRHR rights analysis.

Do not trigger for non-MEL documents, general correspondence, or requests unrelated to evaluation/SRHR.

Required behaviour

Every MEL/SRHR claim must carry author surname, year, and specific document title. Minimum. Section or page when available. The rigour rule is tier-invariant; the placement rule is tier-specific (see below).

Citation placement by audience tier

Read the audience tier from the prompt's Standing instructions block (passed by Ann via Vi). If the tier is not stated, default to Tier 1 / colleague.

  • Tier 1 working brief (default). In the running text, name the analytic move, NOT the framework. Write "tested whether the programme caused the outcome by ruling out rival explanations," not "applied Mayne (2019) revisited contribution analysis." At the end of each section, append **Evidence base:** [author (year) full title, section, hyperlink]; [next source]. The full source list also appears in the ## Sources section at end of document.
  • Tier 1 / junior-MEL learner subgroup. In the running text, name the framework AND the analytic move. Write "we tested rival explanations using Mayne (2019) revisited contribution analysis, because the programme operated alongside three other interventions." Append an annotated **Evidence base:** line: Mayne (2019) [framework foundation, read first]; Lemire et al. (2020) [practitioner application, worked example]. The annotation tells the learner what each source is for.
  • Tier 2 publication. In the running text, cite inline: Mayne (2019) "Revisiting the Contribution Question", Evaluation 25(3). Use the same inline format throughout. The ## Sources section appears at end of document.

Hyperlink rules below (canonical publisher pages, openly-accessible preferred) and recency rules apply to all tiers.

Current authoritative versions to enforce

Use these. Flag any alternative as below current standard.

TopicCurrent standardSupersedesNotes
Contribution analysisMayne (2019) "Revisiting the Contribution Question", Evaluation 25(3)Mayne (2011)Use "contribution plausibility" vocabulary, not earlier "contribution story" alone
Feminist evaluation framingCornwall & Rivas (2015) Third World Quarterly 36(2)—Pair with Batliwala & Pittman (2010) for participatory design, Podems (2014) for positionality
SRHR indicatorsWHO/UNFPA Sexual Health Indicators (2023 revision)2015 editionCross-reference ICPD+25 (2019), SDG 3.7, 5.6
Rights-based approachUNFPA HRBAP + UN Common Understanding HRBA (2003)—Pair with WHO/OHCHR sexual rights (2006/2010), UNFPA State of World Population 2021
Gender-transformativeIGWG Gender Integration Continuum—Pair with Rao & Kelleher (2005) for institutional change
Theory of ChangeVogel (2012) DFID review—Feminist ToC: van Eerdewijk et al. (2017) KIT
Decolonial evaluationChilisa (2020) 2nd ed.Chilisa (2012) 1st ed.Pair with Chouinard & Cousins (2015) for practitioner application
Participatory methodsDavies & Dart (2005) MSC; Wilson-Grau (2018) IAP "Outcome Harvesting" — supersedes the 2012 Wilson-Grau & Britt working paper; Earl, Carden & Smutylo (2001) Outcome Mapping; Patton (2011) Developmental EvaluationWilson-Grau & Britt (2012) — supersededFals Borda (1987) for PAR epistemology
OECD-DAC criteriaOECD (2019) "Better Criteria for Better Evaluation"1991 edition (5 criteria)Must include Coherence or flag omission

Mandatory disaggregation for indicators

Any indicator set must disaggregate by at minimum:

  • Age cohort
  • Gender identity (not sex alone)
  • Disability status
  • Geographic stratum

Flag any indicator missing any of these as below current standard.

Protocol

When producing MEL/SRHR output:

  1. Identify every framework, concept, or indicator invoked.
  2. Match each against the table above. If current, cite with full author + year + document title + section if available.
  3. If the user's draft references an outdated version, flag it in-line: ⚠️ Outdated version — current standard is [author year].
  4. If a claim lacks a source, flag with ⚠️ Data gap: [claim] — needs source — [recommended action].
  5. Never hedge with "according to WHO guidelines" or "feminist scholars suggest". Cite specifically.

Lens application

Feminist, decolonial, intersectionality, and participatory lenses must change the analysis, not appear as acknowledgement sentences. When applying a lens, show what it changed.

  • Feminist: whose voices shaped evaluation questions, power differentials named, norms questioned, bodily autonomy centred for SRHR.
  • Decolonial: framework origin examined, Global North assumptions named, co-design vs consultation distinguished.
  • Intersectionality: disaggregation plus interaction effects, not parallel disaggregation alone.
  • Participatory: position on Hart (1992) ladder named, consultation vs co-design distinguished.

Hyperlink and recency protocol

Per CLAUDE.md Citation Standards, every cited source carries a verified hyperlink to the canonical publisher page, and every source must represent the most recent authoritative evidence available at the time of writing.

Verification protocol

Before finalising any MEL/SRHR output that includes citations:

  1. Build the citation list during drafting (author, year, title, section, publisher).
  2. Recency check — for every grey-literature source not in ${MEL_WIKI_ROOT}/wiki/domain-standards.md (Atlases, EIGE Index, FRA reports, EPF/IPPF EN reports, ECHR judgments, EU strategies, UNFPA SWOP), run a WebSearch to confirm the cited edition is current. If a more recent edition exists, swap or flag.
  3. URL verification — run WebSearch (or WebFetch) for each source to retrieve the canonical publisher URL. Batch parallel WebSearch calls for efficiency. Do not guess URLs from training data.
  4. Preference order for hyperlink target: publisher's canonical page → direct PDF on publisher's domain → institutional repository or DOI → PubMed/PMC for biomedical articles. Aggregators (ResearchGate, academia.edu, Wikipedia) are supplementary, never sole.
  5. Flag what cannot be verified — ⚠️ URL unverified — confirm before publication rather than guess.
  6. State recency exceptions explicitly — (no superseding edition as of [date]) or (canonical reference; subsequent literature builds on but does not supersede).

Citation correction discipline

If WebSearch reveals that a citation drafted from memory is inaccurate (wrong year, wrong title, superseded edition), correct it in-line in the deliverable and note the correction transparently in the sources section or as an end-of-output verification note. Do not publish unverified citations to keep the draft tidy.

Output

Produce the requested MEL/SRHR artefact applying the placement rule for the audience tier (see "Citation placement by audience tier" above):

  • Tier 1 working brief: analytic moves named in prose without framework names; **Evidence base:** line at end of each section; full ## Sources section at end of document.
  • Tier 1 / junior-MEL: framework names AND analytic moves named in prose; annotated **Evidence base:** line at end of each section; full ## Sources section at end of document.
  • Tier 2 publication: inline citations throughout; full ## Sources section at end of document.

Every ## Sources entry lists full bibliographic form with a verified hyperlink to the canonical publisher page. Where a citation could not be verified in-session, flag it explicitly with ⚠️ URL unverified — confirm before publication.

Writing rules

Follow CLAUDE.md house style. For this skill specifically:

  • Never write "recent research" or "best practice" without a named source.
  • Never use "should" or "must" without a framework warrant.
  • If a claim cannot reach publication standard with available information, flag the gap rather than fill with competency-level content.

Limitations

This skill does not search for new literature; its WebSearch calls only verify the edition and URL of sources already cited. It enforces the standards list in CLAUDE.md. When a framework outside the list is invoked, ask Ane whether the reference is current, or flag for verification. Update this skill when CLAUDE.md's framework standards change.

来源与署名

来源:gasserane/personal-skills位于skills/mel-framework-citation提交a22368a

许可证: 无许可证

内容归原作者所有。SourceWeft 从公开仓库中收录这些内容。

举报或申请下架