jcp-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jcp-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. It tells you *which jcp- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) — the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP), Division 23 of the American Psychological Association, published by Wiley (it moved from Elsevier; the resources/official-source-map.md still names the old publisher — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). JCP is the field's flagship for theory-driven, mostly experimental research on consumer judgment, decision-making, affect, motivation, identity, and persuasion. The contribution that gets a paper in is a novel psychological PROCESS* — not a new effect, not a new context. A multi-study package that documents an effect, mediates it, and shows theory-predicted moderation is the modal accepted paper.
Operational tells that you are at JCP and not a sibling: the bar is a psychological mechanism (mediation/moderation-of-process), not theory-of-the-firm or strategy (that is JM), not interpretive/CCT meaning-making (that is JCR), and not a single flashy effect with no audience-specific implication (that is closer to Psychological Science). JCP runs double-blind review (待核实 — confirm on the Wiley author page), formats in APA Style (7th), and takes four manuscript types: Research Article (≤50 double-spaced pages incl. everything), Research Report (<4,000 words excl. abstract/refs/tables/figures), Conceptual Review, and Research Dialogue.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Phenomenon may be too applied / not process-focused / wrong outlet | jcp-topic-selection |
| There is an effect but no psychological mechanism / hypotheses are "A→B" | jcp-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. JCR / JMR / Psych Science is fuzzy or oversold | jcp-literature-positioning |
| Experimental design has confounds, weak manipulations, or no power plan | jcp-methods |
| Mediation/moderation analysis or measurement of the process needs work | jcp-data-analysis |
| The "what's new about the PROCESS" one-liner is not sharp | jcp-contribution-framing |
| Means tables / mediation figures are cluttered or asterisk-driven | jcp-tables-figures |
| Intro frames an effect not a mechanism; prose buries the contribution | jcp-writing-style |
| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight + open-science package | jcp-submission |
| Want to understand AE/reviewer timeline, desk-reject odds, R&R norms | jcp-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter and new-studies strategy | jcp-rebuttal |
jcp-workflow → jcp-topic-selection → jcp-theory-development → jcp-literature-positioning → jcp-methods → jcp-data-analysis → jcp-contribution-framing → jcp-tables-figures → jcp-writing-style → jcp-submission → jcp-review-process → jcp-rebuttal
jcp-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the process is theorized and the mediation/moderation evidence is stable. At JCP the intro must promise a mechanism, so it cannot settle untiljcp-data-analysishas confirmed what the process evidence supports.
JCP papers cluster into a few shapes, and the binding constraint differs by shape. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| New effect, no mechanism yet | naming and theorizing the process | jcp-theory-development |
| Robust effect, weak process evidence | manipulated mediator / moderation-of-process design | jcp-methods → jcp-data-analysis |
| Process clear, sibling overlap (looks like JCR/Psych Sci) | staking the consumer-psychology contribution | jcp-literature-positioning |
| Short, clean single-mechanism finding | fit to the Research Report (<4,000 word) format | jcp-topic-selection → jcp-submission |
| Confirmatory theory test, want pre-result review | Registered Report route (待核实) | jcp-methods |
A user says: "My three studies show that scarcity cues increase impulse purchases, but a reviewer wrote 'this is an effect in search of a process — why does scarcity do this?'" That is the single most common JCP pushback: a documented effect with no mechanism. Route to jcp-theory-development to name the mediator (e.g., scarcity → perceived competition → arousal → impulse), then to jcp-methods to add a study that manipulates the proposed mediator or shows the effect dies when the process is blocked, then to jcp-data-analysis to run the mediation/moderated-mediation properly. Only once the process number is stable do you return to jcp-contribution-framing and jcp-rebuttal.
jcp-writing-style while the mechanism is still missing【Target】Journal of Consumer Psychology
【Archetype】new-effect / weak-process / sibling-overlap / research-report / registered-report
【Current bottleneck】fit / mechanism / positioning / design / process-evidence / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one jcp-* skill>
【Reason】why this step is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.