Individual skill
psychrev-argument-development
Use when deriving predictions from a Psychological Review theory and confronting them with existing data and rival models — the journal's substitute for an empirical results section. Develops the argument; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or set its scope and identifiability limits (psychrev-boundary-conditions).
Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-argument-development/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,404
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- data Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,079 bytes
Read excerpt
# Argument Development: Deriving & Confronting Predictions (psychrev-argument-development)
## When to trigger
- The model is built but you have not shown what it *predicts*
- You assert the theory "explains" phenomena without deriving them
- You have not compared your predictions to rival models on diagnostic cases
- A reviewer will ask "could this theory have been wrong?"
## What replaces a results section here
Psychological Review has no experiment of its own as the contribution. The work that an
empirical paper does with data, a Review paper does with **derivation and confrontation**:
you *derive* predictions from the model's assumptions, then *confront* them with already-