commres-topic-selection — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited commres-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.
CR is SAGE's quantitative, social-scientific communication journal. The bar is not "new on this platform" or "interesting case" — it is "advances communication science with a testable mechanism." Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.
A strong CR paper usually clears all four:
media processing, persuasion, interpersonal/organizational dynamics, health or political communication, new-media use and effects — framed at the level of constructs, not one anecdote.
process (mediation), a boundary condition (moderation), or an adjudication between rival accounts.
constructs that can credibly test the hypotheses (see commres-research-design).
reviewers scrutinize whether the measured thing is the construct claimed.
| Home area | Reach CR by… |
|---|---|
| Media effects / processing | name the cognitive/affective mechanism and test it, not just a stimulus response |
| Persuasion / message effects | model the message feature → mediator → outcome path, with rival accounts |
| Interpersonal / organizational | generalize the relational mechanism; measure it, do not infer it from one case |
| Health / political communication | show the audience/message process that travels beyond one topic |
| New-media use & effects | test the use→effect process; platform is the site, the process is the contribution |
| Candidate framing | Editor's likely read | Move before submitting |
|---|---|---|
| "First study of X on TikTok" | descriptive, platform-bound | recast as a tested communication mechanism the site exposes |
| "Interview study of how users feel about Y" | qualitative — wrong venue | re-route to JoC/NMS, or add a measured, hypothesis-testing component |
| "We measured a main effect of frame on attitude" | thin without mechanism | add the mediator/moderator that explains why and for whom |
| "Replication of a 2010 priming effect" | incremental unless adjudicating | frame as resolving a live measurement or boundary dispute |
| "Message feature M → mediator → outcome, moderated by C" | strong CR fit | proceed |
CR's recurring substantive rejection is "effect documented, process untested" or "construct validity unclear." A health-comm and a political-comm reviewer should both recognize the communication process and trust the measurement. A heuristic about rigor and reach, not a quota.
Initial pitch: "How do influencers label sponsored posts on Instagram?" — descriptive, platform-locked. Through the fit test, the CR question is when disclosure cues trigger persuasion knowledge that discounts a message, and for whom — a measurable process. Reframed as a 2 (disclosure present/absent) experiment testing message → persuasion-knowledge (mediator) → attitude, moderated by prior trust, with validated scales. Now it tests a mechanism with rigorous measurement — a credible CR study, not a platform note.
【Question】one sentence
【Communication process】the construct-level mechanism at stake
【Contribution type】mechanism / boundary condition / adjudication / measurement-corrected effect
【Identification】experiment / survey-panel / content analysis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (route to which sibling?)
【Next】commres-literature-positioning../../resources/external_tools.md — data sources by communication area../../resources/official-source-map.md — CR scope, page limits, APA reporting~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.