commres-writing-style — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited commres-writing-style (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.
A CR paper must read as quantitative communication science: a clear theory-to-hypotheses build, an APA-formatted report, and discipline to the 45-page (double-spaced, inclusive of references) limit (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This skill is about reaching CR's readership and respecting the format — not about generating claims.
theory, the hypotheses, and why they matter to communication science. Don't make a reviewer dig.
introduction builds explicitly to numbered hypotheses (and RQs), which the Results test in order.
without saying what they show and why it matters for the theory.
communication science, so a political-comm reader should follow a health-comm paper.
size, exact p); keep tense and notation consistent.
count toward the page limit.
applicable). Verify the current file/format specifics on the SAGE author page.
main document or supplemental materials; write self-citations in the third person; strip file metadata; provide a separate title page.
page — 待核实).
commres-literature-positioning).
CR is SAGE's quantitative social-scientific communication journal, so the editor reads the opening pages asking one question fast: does this test a communication mechanism in a way that advances the cumulative literature? The table maps common prose-level failure signals to what a CR editor infers and the venue-specific fix.
| Prose signal the editor sees | What it reads as at CR | Social-science fix |
|---|---|---|
| Platform/dataset named before a communication process | "platform write-up, not a test" | open on the message/processing/effect process; platform is the site |
| No numbered hypotheses by the end of the intro | descriptive or under-theorized | build the intro to explicit H1…Hk (RQs where theory is thin) |
| Abstract reports a main effect but no mechanism | finding without a contribution | state the mediator/moderator the study tests |
| Results give stars but no effect sizes | not APA, not interpretable | report d/η²ₚ/β with CIs and substantive meaning |
A survey-experiment manuscript tests whether episodic vs. thematic news framing shifts blame attribution. The first abstract reports only "framing had a significant effect (p < .05)." Walking it through the rules: (1) add the effect size and direction — episodic framing raised individual-blame attribution (illustrative d ≈ 0.4); (2) name the mechanism tested — the effect is mediated by perceived personal responsibility (H2), advancing framing theory rather than re-demonstrating it; (3) add the boundary — stronger for low-knowledge respondents (H3). The revised abstract states question, design, the tested mechanism, and a magnitude — reading as cumulative science, not a significance announcement.
【Hypotheses stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads as cumulative social science?】theory→H→method→results→discussion? [Y/N]
【Results in APA?】effect sizes + CIs/SDs, not stars only? [Y/N]
【Abstract】states question + design + mechanism + finding? cap confirmed?
【Length】≤ 45 double-spaced pp incl. references? [Y/N]
【APA + anonymized + third-person self-cites】[Y/N]
【Next】commres-transparency-and-data../../resources/official-source-map.md — page limit, APA reporting, Word format, anonymization~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.