commres-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited commres-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 a Communication Research (CR) submission. CR is SAGE's quantitative, social-scientific communication journal — predominantly hypothesis-testing experiments and surveys with rigorous measurement and explicit theory. The router's first job is to confirm the paper is theory-driven and quantitatively identified, then send the user to the matching skill.
commres-rebuttal)| Situation | Read | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis-driven experiment or survey, measured constructs | core CR fit | normal pipeline below |
| Computational/text-as-data with hypothesis tests on communication processes | in scope if theory-led | pipeline; emphasize measurement validation |
| Mostly qualitative / interpretive / critical | likely off-fit | re-route to Journal of Communication / New Media & Society before polishing |
| Method/measurement paper for its own sake | off-fit | Communication Methods and Measures |
CR is not multi-paradigm. If the contribution is interpretive or a platform description, the generalist or digital-media siblings fit better — decide this before investing in the pipeline.
Idea / fit? → commres-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → commres-literature-positioning
What are the hypotheses & mechanism? → commres-theory-building
Is the design causally defensible? → commres-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → commres-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → commres-tables-figures
Does it read as social science? → commres-writing-style
Data, code & open practices? → commres-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged? → commres-review-process
Ready to submit? → commres-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → commres-rebuttaltopic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most CR papers loop theory ↔ design ↔ measurement several times before writing-style. If the design is prospective, route to commres-transparency-and-data early to preregister.
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the communication process, the measured constructs, the study design, and the inferential claim; then judge whether the manuscript answers CR's real reader: a quantitatively trained communication scientist who weighs theory, measurement validity, identification, and effect interpretation.
gate, evidence gate, transparency gate, output contract; stop when a gate lacks evidence.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows so the next agentedits rather than rediscovers the issue.
Research (interpersonal/HCR), New Media & Society* (digital, more qualitative). If a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
resources/official-source-map.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Study type】experiment / survey-panel / content analysis / computational
【Route to】commres-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that../../resources/external_tools.md — communication data + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md — official CR/SAGE URLs behind every fact in this pack~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.