apsr-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited apsr-workflow (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 orchestrator for an APSR submission. Figure out the stage and the track, then send the user to the matching skill. APSR is a discipline-wide generalist journal — the router's first job is to make sure the paper is pitched to the whole discipline, not just a subfield.
apsr-rebuttal)| Situation | Track | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Full original study, broad significance | Regular Article (< 11,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| Focused single contribution | Research Note (< 7,000 words) | normal pipeline, tighter scope |
| Re-running / reassessing a published finding | Replications and Reappraisals | apsr-research-design + apsr-transparency-and-data-policy |
| Consolidating a literature or debate | Synthesis | apsr-literature-positioning + apsr-theory-building |
| Design finished, data not yet collected/analyzed | Registered Report | apsr-review-process (Stage 1) early |
If the design is prospective, decide on Registered Reports before collecting data — that is the whole point of the track.
Idea / fit? → apsr-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → apsr-literature-positioning
What's the argument? → apsr-theory-building
Is the design defensible? → apsr-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → apsr-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → apsr-tables-figures
Does it read for the discipline? → apsr-writing-style
Repro package & transparency? → apsr-transparency-and-data-policy
How will it be judged? → apsr-review-process
Ready to submit? → apsr-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → apsr-rebuttaltopic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data-policy → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most papers loop theory ↔ design ↔ analysis several times before writing-style.
Before selecting the next skill, force a one-minute APSR fit check:
| Check | Pass condition | Route if weak |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | A reader outside the author's subfield can state why the question matters to political science. | apsr-topic-selection |
| Track | The manuscript clearly fits Regular Article, Research Note, Replication/Reappraisal, Synthesis, or Registered Report. | track table above |
| Method pluralism | The chosen method is defended on its own terms rather than forced into a quantitative template. | apsr-research-design |
| Transparency | Data, code, qualitative evidence, formal proof, or interpretive materials have an explicit verification plan. | apsr-transparency-and-data-policy |
If the paper fails the audience check, do not route to writing-style. It needs a theory or fit repair, because APSR reviewers reject well-executed subfield papers that never become discipline-wide claims.
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Track】Regular Article / Research Note / Replication / Synthesis / Registered Report
【Route to】apsr-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that../../resources/external_tools.md — political-science data + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md — official APSR URLs behind every fact in this pack~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.