io-writing-style — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited io-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.
An IO paper must be readable by an international-relations scholar from a different tradition, framed around a generalizable IR theory, and disciplined to the word cap. This skill is about reaching the IR field and respecting IO's format — not about generating claims.
international question, the theory, the evidence, and why it matters for international politics. Don't make a reader from another tradition dig for the "so what."
jargon on first use; a security scholar should follow an IPE paper and vice versa. Spell out IGO and dataset acronyms.
show…" without saying what they show about international politics and why it matters.
that reveal identity and refer to your own work in the third person** (e.g., "Matthews 2022," not "as we showed"). Strip identifying file metadata.
references; keep one consistent style (manage with Zotero/BibTeX) and convert at acceptance. The bibliography is excluded from the word count.
Data Availability Statement before the reference list (see io-transparency-and-data-policy).
material** (which should rarely exceed ~20 pages).
io-literature-positioning).
IO introductions that survive the screen tend to follow a recognizable arc. Adapt, don't copy:
could defect from?) any IR scholar finds consequential.
the headline magnitude in IR terms (conflict probability, compliance, trade).
did not. This is the broad-significance close IO editors look for; a reader from another paradigm should be able to restate the contribution by paragraph three.
Because IO mixes formal, quantitative, and qualitative readers, calibrate so none is excluded. A formal result reads better as "states with private information over resolve cannot credibly signal, so bargaining breaks down" before the proposition. A process-tracing narrative should surface its inferential logic so a quantitative reader sees the leverage. The shared standard: the theory of world politics carries the prose and the method serves it.
【IR contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across traditions?】paradigm jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Word count】Article ≤14,000 / Note ≤8,000 / Essay ≤10,000 (incl. tables/figures/notes; excl. bibliography)?
【Double-blind】third-person self-citation + metadata clean? [Y/N]
【Abstract/word-count/acknowledgments separate + DAS + ORCID】[Y/N]
【Next】io-transparency-and-data-policy../../resources/official-source-map.md — word caps, third-person self-citation, short author-date footnotes, separate abstract/word-count/acknowledgments, ORCID~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.