crim-theory-building — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited crim-theory-building (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.
At Criminology a result is not a contribution until it is attached to a mechanism the field can use elsewhere. This skill turns crime findings into theory: explicit causal stories, scope conditions, and observable implications drawn from (or pushing against) the field's theoretical traditions.
victimization vs. reporting, legitimacy vs. compliance. Distinguish each from its neighbors.
or strains. Make it a process, not a regression coefficient.
see. These become the tests in crim-research-design (e.g., a within-individual change in offending following a turning point; displacement vs. diffusion around a hot spot).
developmental stage, place, or institutional context. Portability ≠ universality.
activity/opportunity, life-course/age-graded informal social control, labeling, deterrence, procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy) — or say plainly how it revises one.
not, so the test in crim-research-design can separate them.
on whether the effect is a stable trait or a within-individual change.
Ask: Could a criminologist working on a different offense, age group, or setting import this mechanism? If yes, you have a field-level contribution. If it only works for your exact sample, tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to crim-topic-selection).
Criminology, the flagship of the American Society of Criminology, sits in a theory-testing tradition: a result earns the venue only when it does work on a theory. Reviewers grade engagement on a ladder. Aim for the top two rungs; the bottom two draw the "atheoretical / theory invoked, not tested" critique.
| Engagement level | What the manuscript does | Reviewer verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Decorative | names a theory in the intro, never returns | "theory invoked, not tested" |
| Illustrative | findings "consistent with" a theory, no rival | weak — correlation dressed as theory |
| Test | one prediction the theory makes that a named rival does not | a contribution |
| Adjudicate / revise | data separate two theories, or amend scope conditions | flagship-level |
A study finds youth in high-collective-efficacy neighborhoods self-report about 25% less violence (illustrative). Decorative use stops there. The Criminology move: name the mechanism (informal social control — adults intervening on behavior), derive an observable a social-disorganization rival denies (the gap shrinks once residential stability is held within-neighborhood over time), and bound the scope (collective efficacy bites on expressive, not instrumental, crime). That converts a 25% correlation into a portable, testable claim.
【Core claim】one sentence
【Tradition】theory engaged / extended / adjudicated
【Mechanism】the causal/behavioral story
【Observable implications】testable consequences (incl. within-person) → research-design
【Scope conditions】where it holds / fails (age, offense, place, context)
【Portability】who else in criminology can use this argument
【Next】crim-research-design../../resources/external_tools.md — life-course and longitudinal data for testing mechanisms../../resources/official-source-map.md — Criminology scope and theory-forward expectations~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.