hrm-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited hrm-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.
This is the router for a manuscript aimed at Human Resource Management — the Wiley US-based "HRM" journal (Online ISSN 1099-050X; Print ISSN 0090-4848), a leading outlet for strategic HRM, HR systems and practices, the employment relationship, talent, performance, and well-being, and HR's link to firm and unit outcomes. Its defining feature is a dual contribution bar: a paper must advance the academic literature (theoretically, empirically, and/or methodologically) and carry practical significance — clear implications for workforce policy or HRM practice. A purely psychological micro-paper with no HR-system or practice angle, or a purely managerial think-piece with no scholarly advance, sits at the desk-reject boundary.
Operational tells you are at HRM and not a sibling: HRM accepts the full range of designs (conceptual, empirical, meta-analytic, critical review; qualitative or quantitative; inductive, deductive, or abductive) and explicitly spans micro, macro, and multi-level phenomena; review is double-blind (anonymized manuscript + separate title page); the Editor-in-Chief screens for fit and relevance before review; references use APA style; Wiley's data-availability policy applies. Co-Editors-in-Chief: Fang Lee Cooke; Shaun Pichler (Co-EIC from Jan 2025) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Submission via Wiley ScholarOne / Manuscript Central (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Scope/audience/outlet fit uncertain; no practice payoff | hrm-topic-selection |
| HRM/OB mechanism thin; hypotheses are bald predictions | hrm-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. HRMJ / PPsych / JAP / AMJ is fuzzy | hrm-literature-positioning |
| Design (multilevel, multi-source/wave, CMB, construct validity) shaky | hrm-methods |
| Estimation (HLM/SEM), aggregation, or qualitative coding needs work | hrm-data-analysis |
| The dual "so what — theory AND practice" claim is not sharp | hrm-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits dense; correlation table / interaction plots not reader-ready | hrm-tables-figures |
| Intro/abstract bury the idea; practitioner takeaway invisible | hrm-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need ScholarOne preflight + anonymization check | hrm-submission |
| Want the desk-screen / double-blind / R&R timeline expectations | hrm-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | hrm-rebuttal |
hrm-topic-selection — lock an HR-system/practice question with a practice payoffhrm-theory-development — build the HRM/OB mechanism and hypotheses (a priori)hrm-literature-positioning — stake the contribution vs. HRMJ/PPsych/JAP/AMJhrm-methods — multilevel, multi-source/multi-wave, construct validity, CMB designhrm-data-analysis — HLM/SEM, aggregation justification, mediation/moderationhrm-contribution-framing — sharpen the dual theory-AND-practice claimhrm-tables-figures — correlation table, model build-up, interaction plotshrm-writing-style — make the idea and the takeaway land (abstract + intro last)hrm-submission — ScholarOne preflight, anonymization, data statementhrm-review-process — calibrate desk-screen and developmental R&R expectationshrm-rebuttal — after the R&Rhrm-writing-style is late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and the multilevel design settle.HRM publishes several archetypes, and the binding constraint differs. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic HRM / HR-system → firm performance | construct of the HR system + endogeneity of adoption | hrm-methods → hrm-data-analysis |
| Multilevel HR practices → employee attitudes/behavior | aggregation justification + cross-level model | hrm-theory-development → hrm-methods |
| Employment-relationship / social-exchange micro | common-method bias + temporal separation | hrm-methods |
| Qualitative / case (talent, change, well-being) | grounded rigor + transparent practice payoff | hrm-theory-development → hrm-data-analysis |
| Meta-analysis / critical review | coverage, coding reliability, HR-practice synthesis | hrm-literature-positioning → hrm-data-analysis |
A user says: "My firm-level study shows high-performance work systems raise productivity, but a reviewer says HPWS adoption is endogenous and the paper has no clear takeaway for HR directors." Two distinct HRM pushbacks: adoption endogeneity (owned by hrm-methods → hrm-data-analysis, where the identification strategy lives) and the missing practice payoff (owned by hrm-contribution-framing). Route to methods/data first; only once the HPWS coefficient is defensible (say it settles at a 0.18 SD productivity gain, illustrative) do you return to framing to spell out what an HR leader should do differently.
【Target】Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM")
【Current bottleneck】fit / theory / positioning / design / evidence / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Archetype】strategic-HRM / multilevel / employment-relationship / qualitative / meta-review
【Next skill】<one hrm-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.