cogpsych-topic-selection — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cogpsych-topic-selection (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.
Cognitive Psychology publishes longer, integrative articles that have a major impact on theories of cognition. The bar is a substantial theoretical advance — usually carried by a multi-experiment program tied to a formal/computational model, an incisive experimental series, or a modeling/review contribution. Use this skill to pressure-test fit before investing.
A strong Cognitive Psychology paper usually clears all four:
accounts, formalizes a mechanism, or maps a phenomenon's boundary — rather than adding one more demonstration. State the theory it moves.
model fit to data), not a single study. Each piece must add inference.
fit and compared; if your account can be formalized, the venue rewards doing so (see cogpsych-theory-and-hypotheses).
modeling is reproducible (see cogpsych-open-science-and-transparency).
experiment rules out an alternative or extends scope).
with a formal model fit to the data and compared to rivals.
against existing or new data.
not a literature catalogue.
Score a candidate against the four gates before investing. A recognition-memory project, two framings:
Candidate A (off-fit): one N = 40 experiment showing a novel list-length
effect, described verbally, no model, request-only data.
Theoretical advance ✗ (one effect) Integrative scope ✗ (single study)
Formal backbone ✗ (verbal only) Reproducible ✗ (request-only)
Verdict: off-fit → either grow into a model-driven program or place as a
short report elsewhere.
Candidate B (strong): three experiments that separate unequal-variance signal
detection from a dual-process account, both models fit and
compared, open data + model code.
Theoretical advance ✓ (adjudicates two theories) Integrative scope ✓
Formal backbone ✓ (fit + compared) Reproducible ✓ (code deposited)
Verdict: strong fit → Experiment + model contribution.| If the work is... | Target shape | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A controlled series constraining one theory | Multi-experiment empirical | the integrative arc the venue expects |
| Experiments that can discriminate formal models | Experiment + model | the journal's signature, highest-impact shape |
| A new model tested by fitting + recovery + comparison | Modeling-led | formal contribution to theory |
| A synthesis with a genuine theoretical advance | Integrative review | not a catalogue; must reframe the field |
| One surprising effect, no theory, no model | wrong venue (reframe) | belongs in a short-report journal |
Cognitive Psychology skews longer and more model-driven.
multi-experiment program.
scope; bring the integrative-model contribution here.
it a program.
【Question / phenomenon】one sentence
【Theoretical advance】which theory it moves, and how
【Scope】program of experiments and/or a fitted model? [Y/N]
【Formal backbone】can it be formalized + compared? [Y/N/NA]
【Reproducible】data + model code + materials shareable? [Y/N]
【Type】Multi-experiment / Experiment + model / Modeling-led / Review
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】cogpsych-theory-and-hypotheses../../resources/external_tools.md — modeling and model-comparison tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope, article types, and house style~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.