conflict-of-interest-checker

# Conflict of Interest Checker

Reviewer conflict detection tool.

## Use Cases
- Journal submission prep
- Editorial decisions
- Peer review integrity
- Compliance verification

## Parameters

| Parameter | Type | Default | Required | Description |
|-----------|------|---------|----------|-------------|
| `--authors`, `-a` | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated author names |
| `--reviewers`, `-r` | string | - | Yes | Comma-separated reviewer names |
| `--publications`, `-p` | string | - | No | CSV file with publication records |

### CSV Format

```csv
author,reviewer,paper_id
Smith,Brown,paper1
Smith,Jones,paper2
```

## Usage

```bash
# Check with demo data
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones,Lee" --reviewers "Brown,Davis,Wilson"

# Check with publication records
python scripts/main.py --authors "Smith,Jones" --reviewers "Brown,Davis" --publications pubs.csv
```

## Returns
- Conflict flagging (coauthorship, institutional)
- Shared publication list
- Recommendation: Accept/Recuse
- Alternative reviewer suggestions

### Example Output

```
⚠ Found 2 potential conflict(s):

1. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
   Reviewer: Brown
   Author: Smith
   Shared papers: paper1

2. COAUTHORSHIP CONFLICT
   Reviewer: Wilson
   Author: Smith
   Shared papers: paper2
```

## Risk Assessment

| Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level |
|----------------|------------|-------|
| Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium |
| Network Access | No external API calls | Low |
| File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium |
| Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low |
| Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |

## Security Checklist

- [ ] No hardcoded credentials or API keys
- [ ] No unauthorized file system access (../)
- [ ] Output does not expose sensitive information
- [ ] Prompt injection protections in place
- [ ] Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
- [ ] Output directory restricted to workspace
- [ ] Script execution in sandboxed environment
- [ ] Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
- [ ] Dependencies audited
## Prerequisites

No additional Python packages required.

## Evaluation Criteria

### Success Metrics
- [ ] Successfully executes main functionality
- [ ] Output meets quality standards
- [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully
- [ ] Performance is acceptable

### Test Cases
1. **Basic Functionality**: Standard input → Expected output
2. **Edge Case**: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
3. **Performance**: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time

## Lifecycle Status

- **Current Stage**: Draft
- **Next Review Date**: 2026-03-06
- **Known Issues**: None
- **Planned Improvements**: 
  - Performance optimization
  - Additional feature support