aaag-literature-positioning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aaag-literature-positioning (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
The Annals expects a paper to enter a geographic conversation, not merely to cite a domain literature with a few geography references appended. Position the work so its area's readers, and geographers more broadly, recognize the debate it advances.
spatial-dependence / scale / uncertainty literature; for Nature-Society, political ecology / land change / resilience; for Human, the relevant social-theoretic strand; for Physical, the process literature in your subsystem.
space-time, environment-society, spatial data) so a reader outside the subfield sees the stake.
Name the single closest prior account and write one sentence: "Prior work holds ___; we show instead/additionally ___, which matters for [geographic debate] because ___." If the closest prior account is in another discipline, you must still show how the contribution lands in geography.
spatial dependence, environment-society), not only the domain-science sources.
framing of the "same" phenomenon are different conversations — pick the one your method serves.
| Area | Conversations to engage | Common gap to claim |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | spatial dependence, MAUP/scale, uncertainty, geocomputation | inference distortion others ignore |
| Human | the relevant social-spatial theory (urban, economic, political, cultural) | a relational/spatial mechanism missed |
| Nature-Society | political ecology, land-system science, hazards/resilience | one-sided treatments of coupled systems |
| Physical | process literature in the subsystem + RS/measurement | a process or scale gap in the evidence |
A draft on migration and climate cites a long climate-science literature and one geography reference.
Problem: reads as climate science with a geography citation appended (Human/Nature-Society editors
will ask "where is the geography conversation?")
Repair: map the field into positions — (a) climate-determinist accounts, (b) political-ecology accounts
stressing vulnerability-as-produced, (c) mobility/place-attachment accounts; place the paper among them
Closest prior account: the determinist reading; the contrast sentence states what the paper shows instead
Cross-cutting stake: how place attachment mediates environmental "push" — legible to migration, hazards,
and political-ecology readers alikeThe revision enters a geographic debate and gives each area's reader a position to react to.
【Area conversation】the live debate this paper moves
【Closest prior account】name + the one-sentence contrast
【Cross-cutting stake】why geographers outside the subfield care
【Geographic theory engaged】concepts + their owners
【Next】aaag-theory-building../../resources/exemplars/library.md — how Annals papers stake a position in a geographic debate../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope and area definitions~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.