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.
SkillScore73Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 22 without it.
Without skill27%
With skill73%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The output includes 【Next】 bjps-research-design.
The output routes to 【Next】 bjps-research-design.
The output ends with 【Next】 bjps-research-design.
and 19 more in the full report
12 fixed4 passed either way4 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+45 pp
Tokens
+11%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-26%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v116 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 12
Prompt
I received referee feedback on my comparative politics manuscript stating that my empirical results on coalition stability in post-conflict states are solid, but the paper comes across as 'just a finding' without broader theory. I need help framing this for BJPS. Please break down my argument into a clear main claim, the underlying causal mechanism, testable empirical consequences, boundary conditions where it holds or breaks, and an explanation of how scholars studying other regions or subfields could export this logic to their own research.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The output includes the bracketed section header 【Core claim】.
Missed
Passed
The output includes the bracketed section header 【Mechanism】.
Missed
Passed
The output includes the trailing marker 【Next】 bjps-research-design.
Missed
Passed
case-01 · 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.md84 linessingle file
Theory & Argument Building (bjps-theory-building)
At BJPS a result is not a contribution until it is attached to an argument the field can use
elsewhere — across countries, cases, and subfields. 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 neighbours.
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 bjps-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 (BJPS-specific)
Ask: Could a scholar studying a different country, or working in another subfield, import this
mechanism/concept to their own problem? If yes, you have a contribution of general interest. If the
argument only works for your exact case, tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to
bjps-topic-selection). BJPS's international, cross-subfield readership is the audience for the
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.