Mel Framework Citation

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

作者 gasseranea22368a1505356d9815ee7aa7ffd65f0afeb5bad無授權條款收錄於 2026年10月9日更新於 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citation standard on MEL/SRHR output: injects current authoritative framework versions with author and year, flags outdated versions, applies the data-gap protocol, and places citations tier-aware (Tier 1 evidence-base line, Tier 2 inline, junior-MEL annotated).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 產生的概覽

對監測評估與性生殖健康權利成果強制套用引用與證據標準,並依受眾層級安排引用位置。

功能
此技能將一套固定的引用標準套用於監測、評估與學習(MEL)以及性健康與生殖健康權利(SRHR)成果。它會把所引用的框架與指標對照既有的現行權威版本清單,標記過時版本與沒有來源的論述,並要求指標集依年齡、性別認同、身心障礙狀況與地理分層拆分。它也規定不同受眾層級下引用的放置方式,以及來源的查核與列示方法。
適用情境
在產出變革理論、評估設計、指標架構、資助方報告或方案分析等 MEL 或 SRHR 成果時使用。不適用於非 MEL 文件或一般通信。
執行需求
僅為指示,不含指令碼。它預期提示中會說明受眾層級,未說明時預設為 Tier 1,並引用外部標準檔案與用於領域標準的 wiki 路徑。它要求以網路搜尋或抓取來查核來源版本與出版方標準網址,因此該查核步驟需要網路存取。

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.

來源與署名

來源:gasserane/personal-skills位於skills/mel-framework-citation提交a22368a

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架