---

name: bias-assessor description: | Add bias/risk-of-bias assessment fields to an extraction table and populate them consistently. Trigger: bias, risk-of-bias, RoB, evidence quality, 偏倚评估, 证据质量. Use when: systematic review 已生成 papers/extraction_table.csv，需要在 synthesis 前补齐偏倚/质量字段。 Skip if: 不是 systematic review，或还没有 papers/extraction_table.csv。 Network: none. Guardrail: 使用简单可复核刻度（low/unclear/high）+ 简短 notes；保持字段一致性。

Bias Assessor (risk-of-bias, lightweight)

Goal: make evidence quality explicit in a way that is quick, consistent, and auditable.

Inputs

• papers/extraction_table.csv

Outputs

• Updated papers/extraction_table.csv

Recommended fields

Use a simple 3-level scale (all lowercase): low | unclear | high.

Suggested columns to add (if missing):

• rob_selection
• rob_measurement
• rob_confounding
• rob_reporting
• rob_overall
• rob_notes

Workflow

1. Read papers/extraction_table.csv and identify the set of included studies.
2. If RoB columns are missing, add them (keep names stable once introduced).
3. For each study, fill each RoB domain:
   • low: design/reporting plausibly controls the bias
   • unclear: not enough information to judge
   • high: clear risk (e.g., missing controls, ambiguous measurement, selective reporting)
4. Set rob_overall conservatively:
   • high if any domain is high
   • unclear if no high but at least one unclear
   • low only if all domains are low
5. Add 1–3 short notes in rob_notes that justify the rating.

Definition of Done

• Every included paper row has all RoB columns filled.
• Values are strictly from low|unclear|high (no free-form scale drift).
• Notes are short and specific (what was missing / what was strong).

Troubleshooting

Issue: the table has mixed or inconsistent RoB column names

Fix:

• Normalize to the recommended column names and keep a single set across all rows.

Issue: the paper lacks enough methodological detail

Fix:

• Prefer unclear with a concrete note (“no details on X”) rather than guessing.