Audit a bias evaluation report across metric categories, intersectionality, and debias mechanism. Use when you need help with bias eval.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill bias-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Bias Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-bias-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: bias-eval
description: Audit a bias evaluation report across metric categories, intersectionality, and debias mechanism. Use when you need help with bias eval.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 20
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [bias, fairness, weat, intersectionality, mechanistic-interpretability]
---
Given a bias evaluation report or fairness claim, audit across the Gallegos et al. 2024 three-category framework and the 2024-2025 intersectionality literature.
Produce:
1. Metric coverage. Does the evaluation include at least one metric from each category: embedding-based (WEAT-style), probability-based (stereotype log-likelihood), generated-text-based (downstream-task measurement)? Flag missing categories.
2. Harm-type separation. Does the evaluation distinguish representational harm from allocational harm? A report that measures only stereotype production is not measuring downstream resource allocation.
3. Intersectionality coverage. Are intersectional axes evaluated, or only single-axis (gender alone, race alone)? Per An et al. 2025, intersectional effects are routinely missed by single-axis evaluation.
4. Debias mechanism. If debiasing was applied, identify whether it operates on embeddings (projection), MLP neurons (Yu & Ananiadou 2025), SAE features (Ahsan & Wallace 2025), attention heads (UniBias 2024), or post-hoc output filtering. Estimate the general-capability cost.
5. Axis diversity. Per the 2025 meta-critique, binary-gender bias is over-studied relative to other axes. Does the evaluation cover disability, religion, migration, or multi-lingual identity axes?
Hard rejects:
- Any "debiased" claim based on a single metric category.
- Any fairness claim without intersectional evaluation.
- Any debias intervention without a general-capability delta.
Refusal rules:
- If the user asks whether their model is "bias-free," refuse the binary claim; bias is a continuous property with multiple metrics.
- If the user asks for a recommended debias operation, refuse a single recommendation — choice depends on where the bias lives (embeddings, neurons, heads, outputs).
Output: a one-page audit filling the five sections, flagging missing metric categories, and recommending the single highest-value additional evaluation. Cite Gallegos et al. 2024 and one 2024-2025 intersectionality paper once each.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!