From psychological-review-skills
Sets the scope of a Psychological Review theory: what it explains, what it does NOT, and for formal models whether parameters are identifiable.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psychological-review-skills:psychrev-boundary-conditionsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Your theory reads as if it explains everything (a red flag to reviewers)
At Psychological Review, stating where a theory holds and where it fails is part of the theory itself, not a limitations paragraph tacked on at the end. A theory that "explains everything" explains nothing — unbounded scope signals an unfalsifiable model. Editors read explicit boundaries as a sign of theoretical maturity. Three kinds of limit must be stated.
This is the modeling-specific boundary reviewers probe hardest:
A short, explicit list of phenomena the theory deliberately does not address, with one line each on why (out of scope vs. genuinely open). This pre-empts the "but it can't handle Y" reviewer objection by conceding Y on your own terms.
【In scope】[phenomena explained]
【Out of scope】[phenomena left to other processes, with reasons]
【Domain limits】[development / species / culture / task / Marr level]
【Breakdown regime】[where the mechanism should stop — stated as a test]
【Identifiability】structural: ok/at-risk | recovery: demonstrated/degraded where [...] | mimicry: [rival], separating data: [...]
【Does NOT explain】[short explicit list]
【Next step】psychrev-conceptual-exhibits (diagram + simulation figures) → psychrev-contribution-framing
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psychological-review-skillsDerives predictions from a Psychological Review theory and confronts them with existing data and rival models, serving as the journal's substitute for an empirical results section.
Structures formal/computational models for Cognitive Psychology manuscripts. Derives discriminating predictions that separate your account from rival models to avoid 'just a curve fit' objections.
Defines the scope, domain, and limits of a sociological theory manuscript, converting disclaimers into theorized boundaries that sharpen the contribution.