Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript — whether empirical with explicit mechanisms, formal/game-theoretic, or measurement-driven. AJPS rewards testable theory tightly linked to the empirical strategy, with hypotheses stated before the results. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 19 of 22 without it.
Without skill86%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Requires stating directional hypotheses prior to presenting empirical results
Recommends introducing the substantive political puzzle before presenting the formal model setup
2 fixed19 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+9 pp
Tokens
+34%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-8%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 2
Prompt
We are drafting a game-theoretic model of legislative bargaining. Should we begin the theory section immediately with the formal setup, player definitions, and payoff functions?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Recommends introducing the substantive political puzzle before presenting the formal model setup
Missed
Passed
case-08 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md75 linessingle file
Theory & Argument Building (ajps-theory-building)
At AJPS the theory exists to generate testable expectations that the design and data then
adjudicate. The journal's empirical bar means a model or argument earns its place only if it yields
observable, falsifiable implications that the analysis can confront. This skill turns an idea into
hypotheses, mechanisms, and scope conditions in the idiom your work demands.
When to trigger
The empirics are strong but the "why" / mechanism is thin
A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "a model with no test"
You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
Formal modeling: deciding what to model, what to assume, and what the model buys
Build the argument (by mode of work)
Empirical paper with a theory
Concept — define key constructs precisely; distinguish from neighbors and from how they will be
measured (hand off to ajps-data-analysis for validation).
Mechanism — the causal story: who acts, why, under what incentives/constraints.
Hypotheses — state the directional, testable expectations before the results, and what
pattern would disconfirm them. These become the tests in ajps-research-design.
Scope conditions — where the argument holds and where it does not.
Formal / game-theoretic paper
State the substantive puzzle the model addresses before the setup.
Keep assumptions transparent and motivated; flag which results depend on which assumptions.
Translate equilibrium predictions into comparative statics a reader can test or recognize.
Make the empirical test follow from the model, and distinguish predictions unique to your model
from those shared with rivals.
Measurement / methodology paper (Research Note territory)
Define the quantity the new measure/method recovers and the bias in existing approaches.
State the conditions under which it outperforms incumbents, with a validation plan.
The "testability" gate (AJPS-specific)
Before proceeding, write the sentence: "If the theory is right, we should observe ___; if a rival is
right, we should observe ___ instead." If you cannot fill both blanks with something the data can
distinguish, the theory is not yet ready for an AJPS empirical confrontation.
Use when building the theoretical argument of a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript into a contribution of general interest — whether the work is formal/game-theoretic, empirical with explicit mechanisms, interpretive, or normative. BJPS rewards a clear, portable argument over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.