Use when positioning a Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) manuscript against the field, especially against rival models and prior empirical programs. In a long-form, model-driven venue, positioning means showing what theoretical question your model adjudicates and why prior accounts fall short. Stakes the contribution against the right contrast class; it does not write the full literature review.
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 9/1/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 22 without it.
Without skill59%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Reorganizes studies around a central theoretical claim.
Replaces first-to-show claims with model adjudication framing.
States the specific contrasting prediction made by each model.
and 7 more in the full report
9 fixed13 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+41 pp
Tokens
+29%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-14%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 9/1/2026v122 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 9
Prompt
I am drafting an introduction comparing drift-diffusion models against race models in perceptual decision-making under speed-accuracy tradeoffs. I want to organize the theoretical literature framing cleanly. Please generate a positioning analysis structured with these exact headers: 【Theoretical question】, 【Rival accounts】, 【Why unsettled】, 【Contribution】, 【Anchor citations】, 【Breadth】, and 【Next】.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Connects 【Breadth】 to theoretical impact across cognitive subfields like aging or memory.
Missed
Passed
case-02 · gemini-3.6-flash · 9/1/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md96 linessingle file
Literature Positioning (cogpsych-literature-positioning)
Cognitive Psychology gives you room for a substantial introduction — but length is a trap if it becomes
a catalogue. Positioning here is about the theoretical contrast class: which models or accounts you
adjudicate, what they predict, and why the existing evidence cannot settle the question your program
settles. Position against rival models and prior programs, not against a long chronology.
When to trigger
Drafting the Introduction / theoretical framing
A reviewer said the contribution is "incremental," "already shown," or "not clearly novel relative to
model X"
You have a large literature and must organize it around the theoretical question
Connecting a specific model comparison to a broad question about cognition
How to position in a model-driven venue
Open with the theoretical question, framed as a live debate between accounts — not a textbook
history of the phenomenon.
Name the rival accounts precisely and state what each predicts. The reader should see the fork
the field is stuck on.
Show why existing evidence cannot settle it. Prior studies confound the accounts, lack a model
fit, or test only one design point — make the gap a theoretical gap, not "little is known."
State the contribution early. By the end of the Introduction the reader knows the question, the
model(s), the discriminating design, and what is new (adjudication, formalization, boundary, or a
new model).
Cite to anchor the debate, not to pad. The works that define the rival accounts and the
closest prior programs earn slots; exhaustive background does not.
Reviews, replications, and extensions
An integrative review must reorganize the field around a theoretical claim, not list studies.
Frame a replication/extension around the theoretical stakes (which model it tests, why the prior
result's design was inconclusive), not as a bare repetition.
Positioning triage (organize around the debate)
Candidate citation role
Keep?
Why it earns a slot in Cognitive Psychology
Defines a rival account you adjudicate
always
the contrast class; without it the fork is invisible
Use when positioning a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript against the comparative-politics literature and the rival explanations it must beat. Sharpens the gap and the engaged debate; it does not build the theory or design the study.
Use when you need to understand how Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) evaluates a manuscript — editorial triage for theoretical impact and fit, expert review weighing model rigor, recovery, design, and reproducibility, and the long revision cycles typical of a model-driven journal. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.