Use when building or sharpening the theoretical argument of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so it yields portable, testable comparative implications. Builds the mechanism and its observable implications; it does not run the empirics.
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 9/1/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 23 without it.
Without skill26%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Refers to cps-research-design under the 【Next】 header.
References cps-research-design under the 【Next】 header.
Structures output using the required bracketed schema headers.
and 8 more in the full report
17 fixed4 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+65 pp
Tokens
-25%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-36%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 9/1/2026v121 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 17 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 17
Prompt
A peer reviewer told me my study on subnational healthcare spending in Latin America reads as purely descriptive and lacks a portable theoretical framework. I want to formalize my argument about how municipal mayors allocate funds under fiscal decentralization. Can you lay out a structured theory for me? I need a named, one-sentence causal sequence tracing actors, incentives, actions, and outcomes; 2 to 4 empirical predictions (including one that explicitly separates my story from the main rival account); clear scope conditions detailing where this applies and where it fails; comparative statics showing how variations in local tax autonomy move spending outcomes; a transportability check applying this to a different region like Sub-Saharan Africa; and a reference to the next step in the research design pipeline.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Structures output using the required bracketed schema headers.
Missed
Passed
Includes a single-sentence mechanism statement linking mayor incentives to allocation choices.
Passed
Passed
Refers to cps-research-design under the 【Next】 header.
Missed
Passed
case-01 · 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.md75 linessingle file
Theory Building (cps-theory-building)
CPS rewards arguments that travel. A good CPS theory is a mechanism with scope conditions that
generates observable implications a comparativist can test in more than one setting. Theory can be
verbal-causal, formal/game-theoretic, or comparative-historical — but it must do more than label; it
must predict what should differ across cases and when the mechanism turns off.
When to trigger
Turning a comparative puzzle into a stated argument with implications
A reviewer said the paper "lacks a theory," "is descriptive," or "the mechanism is a black box"
Your finding has no portable claim — nothing another comparativist could import
You need to specify scope conditions and the contrast with the rival from cps-literature-positioning
What a CPS argument must deliver
A named mechanism. State the causal process in one sentence: actor → incentive/constraint →
behavior → outcome. Give it a portable name so it can be cited and carried.
Observable implications. List 2–4 predictions, including at least one that distinguishes your
mechanism from the rival (not just "outcome happens").
Scope conditions. Say where the mechanism should hold and where it should fail. A theory that
predicts everything predicts nothing; scope conditions make it comparative and falsifiable.
Comparative statics / variation. State how the outcome should change as the key cause varies
across cases or over time — this is what the design (cps-research-design) will exploit.
Micro-foundations where the claim is macro. If the argument is about regimes or systems, name the
actor-level behavior that must hold for the macro pattern to obtain.
Modes of theorizing in CPS
Mode
Strength
Watch out for
Verbal-causal
Accessible, flexible
vague mechanism, unfalsifiable scope
Formal / game-theoretic
Precise comparative statics
model-empirics gap; assumptions doing all the work
Comparative-historical
Process and sequence, path dependence
selection on the outcome; ad hoc periodization
Typological
Organizes variation
categories without a mechanism behind them
The portability test (CPS-specific)
Write one sentence: "In a different region/regime — say ___ — the same mechanism predicts ___." If you
cannot, the argument is a local description, not a comparative theory. Then write the **distinguishing
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.