ethics-safety-impact
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/ethics-safety-impactMaps harms, benefits, and risks across stakeholder groups for ethical decisions.
- Identifies vulnerable populations and assesses differential impact on diverse groups.
- Integrates with fairness audit tools and risk mitigation frameworks.
- Recommends specific mitigations based on detected bias or safety gaps.
- Delivers structured reports with monitoring metrics and escalation triggers.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/ethics-safety-impactView on GitHub ↗
--- name: ethics-safety-impact description: Guides structured identification of potential harms, benefits, and differential impacts across stakeholder groups for decisions affecting people. Covers stakeholder mapping, fairness evaluation, risk mitigation design, and monitoring. Use when decisions could affect groups differently, need to anticipate harms/benefits, assess fairness and safety, identify vulnerable populations, or when user mentions ethical review, impact assessment, differential harm, safety analysis, bias audit, or responsible AI/tech. --- # Ethics, Safety & Impact Assessment ## Table of Contents - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) ## Example **Scenario**: Launching credit scoring algorithm for loan approvals 1. **Stakeholders**: Loan applicants (diverse demographics), lenders, society (economic mobility) 2. **Harms**: Disparate impact from historical bias, opacity preventing appeals, feedback loops perpetuating denials 3. **Vulnerable groups**: Racial minorities, immigrants with thin credit files, young adults, people in poverty 4. **Mitigations**: Fairness audit across protected classes, reason codes + appeals, alternative data (rent/utilities), human review for edge cases 5. **Monitoring**: Approval rate parity within 10% across groups; if disparate impact >20%, escalate to ethics committee ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Ethics & Safety Assessment Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and identify vulnerable groups - [ ] Step 2: Analyze potential harms and benefits - [ ] Step 3: Assess fairness and differential impacts - [ ] Step 4: Evaluate severity and likelihood - [ ] Step 5: Design mitigations and safeguards - [ ] Step 6: Define monitoring and escalation protocols ``` **Step 1: Map stakeholders and identify vulnerable groups** Identify all affected parties (direct users, indirect, society). Prioritize vulnerable populations most at risk. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#stakeholder-mapping-template) for stakeholder analysis framework. **Step 2: Analyze potential harms and benefits** Brainstorm what could go wrong (harms) and what value is created (benefits) for each stakeholder group. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#harm-benefit-analysis-template) for structured analysis. **Step 3: Assess fairness and differential impacts** Evaluate whether outcomes, treatment, or access differ across groups. Check for disparate impact. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#fairness-metrics) for fairness criteria and measurement. **Step 4: Evaluate severity and likelihood** Score each harm on severity (1-5) and likelihood (1-5), prioritize high-risk combinations. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#risk-matrix-template) for prioritization framework. **Step 5: Design mitigations and safeguards** For high-priority harms, propose design changes, policy safeguards, oversight mechanisms. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#mitigation-strategies) for intervention types. **Step 6: Define monitoring and escalation protocols** Set metrics, thresholds, review cadence, escalation triggers. Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_ethics_safety_impact.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_ethics_safety_impact.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score ≥ 3.5. ## Common Patterns **Pattern 1: Algorithm Fairness Audit** - **Stakeholders**: Users receiving algorithmic decisions (hiring, lending, content ranking), protected groups - **Harms**: Disparate impact (bias against protected classes), feedback loops amplifying inequality, opacity preventing accountability - **Assessment**: Test for demographic parity, equalized odds, calibration across groups; analyze training data for historical bias - **Mitigations**: Debiasing techniques, fairness constraints, explainability, human review for edge cases, regular audits - **Monitoring**: Disparate impact ratio, false positive/negative rates by group, user appeals and overturn rates **Pattern 2: Data Privacy & Consent** - **Stakeholders**: Data subjects (users whose data is collected), vulnerable groups (children, marginalized communities) - **Harms**: Privacy violations, surveillance, data breaches, lack of informed consent, secondary use without permission, re-identification risk - **Assessment**: Map data flows (collection → storage → use → sharing), identify sensitive attributes (PII, health, location), consent adequacy - **Mitigations**: Data minimization (collect only necessary), anonymization/differential privacy, granular consent, user data controls (export, delete), encryption - **Monitoring**: Breach incidents, data access logs, consent withdrawal rates, user data requests (GDPR, CCPA) **Pattern 3: Content Moderation & Free Expression** - **Stakeholders**: Content creators, viewers, vulnerable groups (targets of harassment), society (information integrity) - **Harms**: Over-moderation (silencing legitimate speech, especially marginalized voices), under-moderation (allowing harm, harassment, misinformation), inconsistent enforcement - **Assessment**: Analyze moderation error rates (false positives/negatives), differential enforcement across groups, cultural context sensitivity - **Mitigations**: Clear policies with examples, appeals process, human review, diverse moderators, cultural context training, transparency reports - **Monitoring**: Moderation volume and error rates by category, appeal overturn rates, disparate enforcement across languages/regions **Pattern 4: Accessibility & Inclusive Design** - **Stakeholders**: Users with disabilities (visual, auditory, motor, cognitive), elderly, low-literacy, low-bandwidth users - **Harms**: Exclusion (cannot use product), degraded experience, safety risks (cannot access critical features), digital divide - **Assessment**: WCAG compliance audit, assistive technology testing, user research with diverse abilities, cross-cultural usability - **Mitigations**: Accessible design (WCAG AA/AAA), alt text, keyboard navigation, screen reader support, low-bandwidth mode, multi-language, plain language - **Monitoring**: Accessibility test coverage, user feedback from disability communities, task completion rates across abilities **Pattern 5: Safety-Critical Systems** - **Stakeholders**: End users (patients, drivers, operators), vulnerable groups (children, elderly, compromised health), public safety - **Harms**: Physical harm (injury, death), psychological harm (trauma), property damage, cascade failures affecting many - **Assessment**: Failure mode analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, worst-case scenarios, edge cases that break assumptions - **Mitigations**: Redundancy, fail-safes, human oversight, rigorous testing (stress, chaos, adversarial), incident response plans, staged rollouts - **Monitoring**: Error rates, near-miss incidents, safety metrics (accidents, adverse events), user-reported issues, compliance audits ## Guardrails 1. **Identify vulnerable groups explicitly**: Prioritize children, elderly, people with disabilities, marginalized/discriminated groups, low-income, low-literacy, geographically isolated, and politically targeted populations. If none are identified, look harder. 2. **Consider second-order and long-term effects**: Look for feedback loops (harm leads to disadvantage leads to more harm), normalization, precedent-setting, and accumulation of small harms over time. Ask "what happens next?" 3. **Assess differential impact, not just average**: A feature may help the average user but harm specific groups. Check for disparate impact (outcome differences across groups >20% is a red flag), intersectionality, and distributive justice. 4. **Design mitigations before launch**: Build safeguards into design, test with diverse users, use staged rollouts with monitoring, and pre-commit to audits. Reactive fixes come too late for those already harmed. 5. **Provide transparency and recourse**: At minimum, explain decisions, provide appeal mechanisms with human review, offer redress for harm, and maintain audit trails. 6. **Monitor outcomes, not just intentions**: Measure outcome disparities by group, user-reported harms, error rate distribution, and unintended consequences. Set thresholds that trigger review or shutdown. 7. **Establish clear accountability and escalation**: Define who reviews ethics risks before launch, who monitors post-launch, what triggers escalation, and who can halt harmful features. 8. **Respect autonomy and consent**: Provide informed choice in plain language, meaningful alternatives (not coerced consent), user control (opt out, delete data), and purpose limitation. Children and vulnerable groups need extra protections. **Common pitfalls:** - ❌ **Assuming "we treat everyone the same" = fairness**: Equal treatment of unequal groups perpetuates inequality. Fairness often requires differential treatment. - ❌ **Optimization without constraints**: Maximizing engagement/revenue unconstrained leads to amplifying outrage, addiction, polarization. Set ethical boundaries. - ❌ **Moving fast and apologizing later**: For safety/ethics, prevention > apology. Harms to vulnerable groups are not acceptable experiments. - ❌ **Privacy theater**: Requiring consent without explaining risks, or making consent mandatory for service, is not meaningful consent. - ❌ **Sampling bias in testing**: Testing only on employees (young, educated, English-speaking) misses how diverse users experience harm. - ❌ **Ethics washing**: Performative statements without material changes. Impact assessments must change decisions, not just document them. ## Quick Reference **Key resources:** - **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)**: Stakeholder mapping, harm/benefit analysis, risk matrix, mitigation planning, monitoring framework - **[resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)**: Fairness metrics, privacy analysis, safety assessment, bias detection, participatory design - **[resources/evaluators/rubric_ethics_safety_impact.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_ethics_safety_impact.json)**: Quality criteria for stakeholder analysis, harm identification, mitigation design, monitoring **Stakeholder Priorities:** High-risk groups to always consider: - Children (<18, especially <13) - People with disabilities (visual, auditory, motor, cognitive) - Racial/ethnic minorities, especially historically discriminated groups - Low-income, unhoused, financially precarious - LGBTQ+, especially in hostile jurisdictions - Elderly (>65), especially digitally less-skilled - Non-English speakers, low-literacy - Political dissidents, activists, journalists in repressive contexts - Refugees, immigrants, undocumented - Mentally ill, cognitively impaired **Harm Categories:** - **Physical**: Injury, death, health deterioration - **Psychological**: Trauma, stress, anxiety, depression, addiction - **Economic**: Lost income, debt, poverty, exclusion from opportunity - **Social**: Discrimination, harassment, ostracism, loss of relationships - **Autonomy**: Coercion, manipulation, loss of control, dignity violation - **Privacy**: Surveillance, exposure, data breach, re-identification - **Reputational**: Stigma, defamation, loss of standing - **Epistemic**: Misinformation, loss of knowledge access, filter bubbles - **Political**: Disenfranchisement, censorship, targeted repression **Fairness Definitions** (choose appropriate for context): - **Demographic parity**: Outcome rates equal across groups (e.g., 40% approval rate for all) - **Equalized odds**: False positive and false negative rates equal across groups - **Equal opportunity**: True positive rate equal across groups (equal access to benefit) - **Calibration**: Predicted probabilities match observed frequencies for all groups - **Individual fairness**: Similar individuals treated similarly (Lipschitz condition) - **Counterfactual fairness**: Outcome same if sensitive attribute (race, gender) were different **Mitigation Strategies:** - **Prevent**: Design change eliminates harm (e.g., don't collect sensitive data) - **Reduce**: Decrease likelihood or severity (e.g., rate limiting, friction for risky actions) - **Detect**: Monitor and alert when harm occurs (e.g., bias dashboard, anomaly detection) - **Respond**: Process to address harm when found (e.g., appeals, human review, compensation) - **Safeguard**: Redundancy, fail-safes, circuit breakers for critical failures - **Transparency**: Explain, educate, build understanding and trust - **Empower**: Give users control, choice, ability to opt out or customize **Monitoring Metrics:** - **Outcome disparities**: Measure by protected class (approval rates, error rates, treatment quality) - **Error distribution**: False positives/negatives, who bears burden? - **User complaints**: Volume, categories, resolution rates, disparities - **Engagement/retention**: Differences across groups (are some excluded?) - **Safety incidents**: Volume, severity, affected populations - **Consent/opt-outs**: How many decline? Demographics of decliners? **Escalation Triggers:** - Disparate impact >20% without justification - Safety incidents causing serious harm (injury, death) - Vulnerable group disproportionately affected (>2× harm rate) - User complaints spike (>2× baseline) - Press/regulator attention - Internal ethics concerns raised **When to escalate beyond this skill:** - Legal compliance required (GDPR, ADA, Civil Rights Act, industry regulations) - Life-or-death safety-critical system (medical, transportation) - Children or vulnerable populations primary users - High controversy or political salience - Novel ethical terrain (new technology, no precedent) → Consult: Legal counsel, ethics board, domain experts, affected communities, regulators **Inputs required:** - **Feature or decision** (what is being proposed? what changes?) - **Affected groups** (who is impacted? direct and indirect?) - **Context** (what problem does this solve? why now?) **Outputs produced:** - `ethics-safety-impact.md`: Stakeholder analysis, harm/benefit assessment, fairness evaluation, risk prioritization, mitigation plan, monitoring framework, escalation protocol