Use when articulating what an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript contributes — converting findings into a claim that changes how the field understands accounting's social, organizational, behavioral or institutional operation. Frames the payoff; it does not produce new analysis (aos-data-analysis).
SkillScore55Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 12 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
Without skill14%
With skill55%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The output classifies 【Type】 as process.
The output sets 【Type】 to reconceptualization.
The output sets 【Type】 to process or mechanism.
and 13 more in the full report
11 fixed1 passed either way8 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+41 pp
Tokens
+38%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-12%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v112 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 11
Prompt
My field study of commercial bank lending officers shows that automated machine learning credit scoring tools function as accountability delegators rather than risk assessment precision enhancers. recast my manuscript's contribution using bracketed labels covering contribution sentence, category, prior credit scoring literature concessions, theoretical give-back, scope conditions, and next step.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The output sets 【Type】 to reconceptualization.
Missed
Passed
The output uses the exact tag name 【Concessions owed】.
Missed
Passed
The output sets 【Next step】 to aos-tables-figures.
Missed
Passed
case-15 · 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.md70 linessingle file
Contribution Framing (aos-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
Findings are solid but the discussion section restates them instead of arguing from them
The current contribution reads as "first evidence from setting X" or "extends literature Y"
You cannot answer, in one sentence, what a reader of the AOS canon now understands differently
A reviewer asks what the paper offers beyond the case / beyond the experiment
What counts as a contribution at AOS
The currency is conceptual: after your paper, readers should think differently about how accounting operates in organizations or society. Empirical novelty, clean identification, or an exotic setting are inputs, not contributions. Strong AOS contribution types:
Type
Shape of the claim
New concept
Names and demonstrates a phenomenon the field lacked words for
Mechanism
Shows how an accounting practice produces its organizational/social effect
Boundary condition
Shows where a received account holds, fails, or reverses
Reconceptualization
Recasts a familiar practice (budgeting, audit, risk metrics) as doing different work than assumed
Process evidence
(Experimental) locates the psychological process behind a known accounting effect
Genealogy
Shows how a present practice became possible and what it forecloses
Build the claim from the findings
Draft the contribution as one falsifiable-in-spirit sentence: "This paper shows that [accounting practice] [does what] through [mechanism/process], which [changes what] in [which conversation]."
Tie it to the crack identified in aos-literature-positioning: the contribution is the answer to that specific disagreement, not a free-floating insight.
Test transferability honestly: what about the claim travels beyond the site or the lab, and via what logic (theoretical generalization for field work; process generality for experiments)? Say so explicitly — overselling a single case is as damaging as underselling it.
Locate the implications where AOS expects them: for theory first; for practice, regulation, or policy second and only as far as the evidence carries.
The discussion section that delivers it
Restate the puzzle and the answer in two or three sentences — conceptual language, not variable names.
Spell out what each nearest prior paper must now concede or refine.
Develop the theoretical implications: what the lens itself gains from the case (AOS values papers that give back to the imported theory, not just borrow from it).
Bound the claim: scope conditions, site particularities, design limits — stated as analysis, not ritual humility.
Open genuine next questions the reconceptualization makes visible.
Quick self-test
Read your contribution sentence to a colleague who knows the AOS canon but not your project. If their