conbio-literature-positioning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited conbio-literature-positioning (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.
Conservation Biology rewards novelty and transferability, and reviewers screen hard for whether a paper actually advances the field. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the work where a conservation audience spanning ecology, the social sciences, and practice can see the gap and the advance.
evidence gap your paper speaks to, and cite the works that define it — including foundational conservation-biology theory where relevant.
conservation reader (why it matters for biodiversity). An ecologist and a practitioner should both see the stakes.
not yet translated into practice, and why resolving it matters for conservation.
generalizes / translates into decision D."
and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to conbio-study-design).
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| an ecological field study | the conservation-decision or management literature it informs |
| a method/SDM/modeling advance | the substantive conservation problems that will use it |
| a human-dimensions / social study | the ecological stakes and the policy literature |
| a policy / practice analysis | the underlying evidence base on what works |
conbio-submission)Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Problem】the live conservation gap / disagreement
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-disciplinary)
【Gap】what is contested / unmeasured / untranslated
【Advance】how this paper moves the field
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】conbio-study-design../../resources/external_tools.md — synthesis tooling and conservation data sources../../resources/official-source-map.md — scope, novelty, and transferability expectations~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.