ajps-literature-positioning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ajps-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.
At AJPS the introduction must do two things at once: place the paper inside a live empirical or theoretical debate that a broad political-science readership recognizes, and stay consistent with double-blind review. The second constraint is easy to break — a single "as we demonstrated in our 2021 paper" can identify the authors. Positioning is where the contribution is staked and where anonymity is most often lost.
the open mechanism your paper speaks to, and cite the works that define it.
A / identify E cleanly / show E is conditional on C." A generalist reader should see the increment.
strongest alternative explanation and signal how the design adjudicates it (hand off to ajps-research-design).
care, without diluting the specialist contribution.
earlier work" or "we previously showed."
conference-presentation mentions, and "available on my website" links.
cite only what the argument needs (see ajps-submission).
A paper on close-election incumbency advantage positions against a live debate: prior estimates credit officeholder resources, while a rival camp argues candidate-quality persistence. The marginal-contribution sentence: "Existing RD work estimates a pooled advantage assuming no sorting; we relax that, add a manipulation test, and show the effect survives — isolating the officeholding channel." The strongest rival is named, with a pointer to the adjudicating design. Self-cites stay third-person, preserving anonymity.
that define the live disagreement and locate your increment against them.
single tell can de-anonymize at AJPS.
Calibration anchor: AJPS rewards a contribution that travels across political settings and an introduction engaging a debate a broad readership recognizes; confirm the current anonymizing rules against the journal's guidelines.
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the political theory, design leverage, measurement validity, and scope condition; then test whether the manuscript addresses political-science reviewers who expect tight theory, transparent design, and a contribution that travels across political settings.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.【Debate】the live disagreement / contested estimate
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / unidentified
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Anonymity】self-cites in third person, no identifying tells? [Y/N]
【Next】ajps-theory-building../../resources/official-source-map.md — double-blind review and anonymizing requirements~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.