Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From skills-for-humanity
Entry point routing ethical reasoning to the right analysis tool: council, check, crisis triage, data audit, bias check, consent review, impact scan, or vendor review.
npx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:ethicsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Applies ethical reasoning to decisions, designs, policies, and practices. Diagnoses the type and depth of ethical work needed and applies the right tool.
Runs a decision, feature, or policy through 5 ethical framework advisors who analyze, peer-review, and synthesize a verdict. Trigger with '/ethics-council' or explicit ethics keywords.
Conducts ethics reviews for AI and technology projects including ethical impact assessments, stakeholder analysis, and mitigation planning. Use for evaluating risks and harms.
Guides ethics and safety impact assessments: maps stakeholders, analyzes harms/benefits, evaluates fairness/differential impacts, designs mitigations, and sets monitoring for people-affecting decisions.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Applies ethical reasoning to decisions, designs, policies, and practices. Diagnoses the type and depth of ethical work needed and applies the right tool.
| You need to... | Tool |
|---|---|
| Comprehensive multi-framework council with peer review | ethics-council |
| Fast complete ethics report across all frameworks | ethics-check |
| Rapid ethical response to an active incident | ethics-crisis-triage |
| Audit a data collection or sharing decision | ethics-data-audit |
| Check an algorithm or model for bias and fairness | ethics-bias-check |
| Review a UX flow for genuine consent | ethics-consent-review |
| Quick ethical impact scan before shipping | ethics-impact-scan |
| Evaluate a vendor or supplier against ethical standards | ethics-vendor-review |
After diagnosing which tool fits, use the AskUserQuestion tool to confirm direction. Construct the question dynamically to include your diagnosis:
Proceed based on their selection.
Fast comprehensive ethics report across all five frameworks.
Run the situation through all five ethical frameworks in a single pass:
Synthesize: where do the frameworks agree (high-confidence signal)? Where do they conflict (genuine value tension that must be owned)? Issue a verdict with a direct recommendation.
Full five-advisor council with peer review — use for high-stakes decisions.
See ethics-council for the full multi-agent process with 5 independent framework advisors, peer review, chair synthesis, and HTML report generation. Route here when the stakes are high enough to warrant that depth.
Rapid ethical assessment when something has already gone wrong.
In a crisis, the instinct is to manage rather than reason. This tool forces ethical clarity under pressure. Apply a rapid three-layer assessment: (1) Immediate harm — who is being harmed right now, and what stops it fastest? (2) Accountability — what transparency is owed, and to whom? (3) Response ethics — which response options themselves create new ethical problems? Crisis responses that cut ethical corners tend to create second crises.
Output: Immediate harm assessment, accountability obligations, ethically viable response options, and what to avoid.
Audit a data decision against ethical standards.
Goes beyond legal compliance. Assess: (1) Necessity — is collecting this data actually required for the stated purpose? (2) Proportionality — is the scope of collection proportional to the benefit? (3) Consent — do people meaningfully understand and agree to this? (4) Harm potential — what's the worst realistic use or breach? (5) Retention — how long is too long?
Output: Data practice assessment across all five dimensions, with specific changes that would make the practice clearly ethical.
Evaluates an algorithm or model for discriminatory patterns.
Assess the system against protected characteristics: does it produce systematically different outcomes for different groups? If so: is the difference justified by legitimate criteria, or does it reflect historical bias in training data? Apply four fairness standards: equal treatment, equal outcome, individual fairness, and counterfactual fairness. Flag which standard is being violated and by what mechanism.
Output: Fairness assessment per standard, identified disparate impacts, root cause of bias, and mitigation recommendations.
Reviews a UX flow for genuine consent.
Genuine consent is informed, voluntary, and meaningful — not just legally checkboxed. Evaluate the flow: Can users meaningfully understand what they're agreeing to? Are they under pressure (dark patterns, urgency, buried choices)? Is opting out as easy as opting in? Would a user feel deceived after the fact?
Output: Consent quality assessment, specific dark patterns identified, and changes needed for consent to be genuine.
Quick pre-ship ethical impact assessment.
Before committing, surface: who benefits from this? Who bears costs or risk? At what scale? Are the costs and benefits distributed fairly? Are any harms irreversible? This is a lightweight check that takes minutes — the goal is to catch obvious ethical problems before they become embedded in shipped product.
Output: Benefit/harm map, distribution assessment, irreversibility flags, and a go/no-go recommendation with conditions.
Evaluates a third-party against ethical standards.
Assess across five domains: (1) Labor practices — how are workers treated in the supply chain? (2) Data handling — how do they use data about you and your users? (3) Business model — does their incentive structure align with your values? (4) Environmental impact, (5) Political/social alignment — do their positions or practices conflict with stated values? A vendor whose practices conflict with your values makes your product complicit.
Output: Vendor assessment across all five domains, red flags, and a recommendation on whether to proceed.