Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript into a discipline-level contribution — whether the work is formal/game-theoretic, empirical with explicit mechanisms, interpretive, or normative. APSR rewards a clear, portable argument over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 22 without it.
Without skill59%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Response includes the tag 【Next】apsr-research-design.
Response includes the bracketed header 【Portability】.
Response defines boundary limits under 【Scope conditions】.
and 6 more in the full report
7 fixed13 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+32 pp
Tokens
+29%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-15%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 7
Prompt
I am preparing a formal game-theoretic manuscript on executive decree power and coalition stability. While the equilibrium proofs are complete, the paper needs a clearer substantive theoretical narrative. Please organize my setup into a comprehensive theory profile covering the main thesis, the essential load-bearing assumptions, comparative static predictions, where the logic holds or fails, and its cross-subfield relevance.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Response lists essential load-bearing model assumptions under 【Assumptions】.
Missed
Passed
Response presents theoretical implications as testable comparative statics.
Passed
Passed
Response includes the tag 【Next】apsr-research-design.
Missed
Passed
case-02 · 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.md97 linessingle file
Theory & Argument Building (apsr-theory-building)
At APSR a result is not a contribution until it is attached to an argument the discipline can use
elsewhere. This skill turns findings into theory: explicit mechanisms, scope conditions, and
observable implications, in the idiom appropriate to your kind of work.
When to trigger
The empirics are strong but the "so what / why" is thin
A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "just a finding"
You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
Formal modeling: deciding what to model, what to assume, and what the model buys you
Build the argument (by mode of work)
Empirical paper with a theory
Concept — define the key constructs precisely; distinguish from neighbors.
Mechanism — the causal story: who does what, why, under what incentives/constraints.
Observable implications — what we should see if the mechanism operates (and what we should
not see). These become the tests in apsr-research-design.
Scope conditions — where the argument holds and where it does not. Portability ≠ universality.
Formal / game-theoretic paper
State the substantive puzzle the model addresses before the setup.
Keep assumptions transparent and motivated; flag which results are robust to which assumptions.
Translate equilibrium predictions into comparative statics a reader can test or recognize.
Say what the model buys: a non-obvious prediction, a resolution of a puzzle, a unifying logic.
Interpretive / normative paper
Make the conceptual or normative stakes explicit and connect them to political life.
Build the argument through reasons and texts, not hypotheses; engage the strongest counter-view.
Show what the argument lets the field see or justify that it could not before.
The "portability" test (APSR-specific)
Ask: Could a scholar in another subfield import this mechanism/concept to their own problem? If yes,
you have a discipline-level contribution. If the argument only works for your exact case, tighten it
into a general logic or reframe (back to apsr-topic-selection).
Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript into a portable, discipline-level contribution. AJS prizes theoretical ambition above a bare finding — explicit concepts, mechanisms, and scope conditions, in the idiom of the work (quantitative, comparative-historical, ethnographic, or formal). Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.