Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

polisci-review

Run a political science pre-submission audit with journal-aware personas, stage-aware standards, and evidence-grounded issue reporting.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Works withWord

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md2.2 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml323 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

PoliSci Review

This installed skill is self-contained.

Read the canonical files in this order:

  1. ./core/invocation-spec.md
  2. ./core/journal-manifest.json
  3. ./core/paper-discovery.md
  4. ./core/track-stage-rules.md
  5. ./core/issue-taxonomy.md
  6. ./core/references/guardrails.md
  7. ./core/references/journal-signals.md
  8. ./core/references/journal-personas.md
  9. all relevant files in ./core/modules/
  10. ./core/report-template.md

Workflow:

  1. Parse user arguments using the canonical invocation contract.
  2. Discover the manuscript and linked component files. Prefer .tex whenever available; support .docx, .md, .txt, and text-readable .pdf on a best-effort basis.
  3. Detect stage and track when omitted.
  4. Apply the selected journal persona and the 9-module audit structure.
  5. Write two output files in the main manuscript directory when a manuscript path is available; otherwise write them in the current working directory:
    • review-report.md following ./core/report-template.md
    • review-report.json conforming to ./core/issue-schema.json
  6. Before finishing, make sure review-report.json is valid JSON and briefly confirm the paths you wrote.

Guardrails:

  • Do not merely describe the outputs. Write the files unless the environment prevents file output.
  • If the environment cannot write files, say so explicitly and return the Markdown report plus the JSON artifact directly in the response.
  • Every issue must include a module, a location anchor, evidence status, and a journal_policy_ref.
  • Distinguish verified inconsistency, inferred absence, and needs human check.
  • Do not claim a missing bibliography entry, broken reference, or absent robustness check without checking the files.
  • If .docx or .pdf content cannot be read reliably, say so and request exported text instead of guessing.
  • Do not review proposals as if they were completed articles.
  • Use PA for Political Analysis.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Report a problem with this skill