Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Conservation Biology manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — appropriate ecological/statistical models, honest uncertainty, robustness, and reproducibility. Covers detection, hierarchical models, spatial structure, and effect sizes that matter for conservation. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conbio-data-analysis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Conbio Data Analysis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-conbio-data-analysis)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: conbio-data-analysis
description: Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Conservation Biology manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — appropriate ecological/statistical models, honest uncertainty, robustness, and reproducibility. Covers detection, hierarchical models, spatial structure, and effect sizes that matter for conservation. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
---
# Data Analysis (conbio-data-analysis)
*Conservation Biology* reviewers are methodologically sophisticated, and the journal expects a
**data-availability statement** with data and code deposited at acceptance (see
`conbio-reporting-and-data-policy`). Analyze as if your code will be re-run — because it may be. This
skill covers execution and reporting norms; design decisions live in `conbio-study-design`.
## When to trigger
- Running main and supporting analyses; building the results section
- A reviewer asked for robustness, alternative models, or uncertainty
- Reconciling exploratory vs. confirmatory analyses
- Making the analysis reproducible before deposit
## Analysis norms Conservation Biology expects
1. **Report uncertainty honestly.** Confidence/credible intervals, not just stars or p-values; report
the **magnitude and conservation meaning** of the estimate, not only significance.
2. **Use the right model for the data.** Hierarchical/mixed models for nested data; occupancy and
N-mixture for detection; capture-recapture for survival/abundance; GLMs/GAMs for nonlinearity;
account for spatial autocorrelation and zero-inflation where present.
3. **Robustness that probes, not decorates.** Show specifications that could *break* the result
(alternative predictors, samples, priors, estimators), and say what you learn.
4. **Right inference.** Cluster/group at the correct level; avoid pseudoreplication in the analysis;
correct for multiple comparisons when testing many implications.
5. **Confirmatory vs. exploratory.** Separate preregistered/confirmatory tests from exploratory ones;
do not mine for a significant interaction and theorize it post hoc.
6. **Model checking.** Report convergence, residual diagnostics, validation/out-of-sample performance
for predictive models; show the result is not an artifact of one modeling choice.
## Conservation-specific reporting
- Translate estimates into **decision-relevant quantities** (extinction risk, population trend,
effect of a management action, area needed) with uncertainty.
- For projections (PVA, SDM, climate), state the assumptions and the range of plausible outcomes —
not a single point forecast.
## Reproducibility while you work (not at the end)
- One **master script** regenerates every table and figure from the (raw or constructed) data.
- **Set and report seeds** for bootstrap, MCMC, simulation, and any stochastic step.
- Pin software/package versions (`renv.lock`, `requirements.txt`, recorded installs).
- Keep table/figure numbers matched to script outputs.
## Anti-patterns
- Stars/p-values with no effect sizes or intervals
- Raw counts analyzed as abundance with detection ignored
- "Robustness" that only reruns near-identical specs to manufacture stability
- p-hacking / HARKing exploratory results into confirmatory claims
- A single point projection presented as certain
- A results section whose numbers the code cannot reproduce
## Output format
```
【Main estimate】magnitude + interval + conservation meaning
【Model】why this model fits the data (detection / hierarchy / spatial)
【Robustness】specs that could break it → what held
【Confirmatory vs exploratory】clearly separated?
【Uncertainty in projections】range stated, not a point?
【Reproducible】master script + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Next】conbio-figures-and-tables
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — modeling, inference, and synthesis packages
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — data-availability and reproducibility expectations
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!