Use when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal.
SkillScore83Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 9/1/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 24 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 24 without it.
Without skill58%
With skill83%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Directs the author to cps-workflow.
Recommends handing off to cps-rebuttal.
Output includes the bracketed label 【Next】.
and 10 more in the full report
6 fixed14 passed either way4 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+25 pp
Tokens
+18%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-17%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 9/1/2026v120 of 24 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 6
Prompt
Before submitting my comparative paper on military expenditure to CPS, I want to verify comparative-fit checks against the core journal workflow. Which skill module contains these workflow comparative-fit checks?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Directs the author to cps-workflow.
Missed
Passed
case-18 · 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.md81 linessingle file
Review Process (cps-review-process)
Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses
anonymous peer review via SAGE Track (ScholarOne); the manuscript is screened by an editor first,
then sent to reviewers if it clears desk evaluation. Comparativists review for comparative leverage,
travel, and methodological soundness on the paper's own terms.
When to trigger
Before submission, to stress-test the paper against likely reviewer objections
Deciding whether the paper is ready or needs another design/analysis loop
Interpreting a decision letter and what each decision category means
Anticipating reviewer disagreement across subfields/methods
The two screens
Editorial / desk screen. An editor judges fit and quality before review. Common desk-reject
grounds: not comparative / no comparative leverage; out of CPS scope; better suited to a general or
IR journal; insufficient contribution; serious methodological or ethical problems; not ready in
English/format. Make the comparative contribution unmissable on page one to clear this screen.
Anonymous peer review. Reviewers (typically comparativists matched to subfield and method)
evaluate the contribution, design, and execution. Editors weigh reviews and decide.
What CPS reviewers reward and punish
Reviewers reward
Reviewers punish
Clear comparative leverage and a portable mechanism
Single-case study with no comparative claim
Design that rules out the leading rival
"Causal" language on a cross-national correlation
Cross-national measurement handled transparently
Cherry-picked codings; few-cluster SEs ignored
Engagement with the comparative literature beyond one region
Regional insularity; reinventing a known result
Replication-ready materials and a data availability statement