Menu

Individual skill

psychrev-contribution-framing

0upvotes

Use when articulating the theoretical advance of a Psychological Review manuscript — what the field can explain after the paper that it could not before, stated against the specific prior models it improves on. Frames the contribution; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or position it in the literature (psychrev-literature-positioning).

Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-contribution-framing/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
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)
1,412
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Contribution Framing (psychrev-contribution-framing)

## When to trigger

- The theory is built, derived, and bounded; now you must say why it matters
- You can describe what your model *is* but not what is *new* about it
- A reviewer will ask "how is this an advance over [the standing model]?"
- The contribution reads as "we propose a model of X" with no before → after

## The two questions every Review reviewer asks

1. **What can the field explain after this paper that it could not before?** Stated as a
   concrete *before → after* against a **named** prior model — not against "the literature."
2. **Why could the prior models not get there?** Identify the specific commitment or omission
Back to top