From psychological-review-skills
Positions a Psychological Review manuscript within its theoretical conversation by naming rival models and diagnostic phenomena. Use when reviewers will ask "how is this different from X?"
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psychological-review-skills:psychrev-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The model is forming but you cannot name whose account you improve on
At Psychological Review the central positioning question is not "what is the area?" but "which existing theories make claims about this explanandum, and what does yours do that they cannot?" Editors and reviewers are typically drawn from exactly the modeling tradition you enter. A paper that does not engage the standing models reads as unaware of its own field.
For each phenomenon in your explanandum, build a rival map:
| Phenomenon (diagnostic) | Rival theory/model | What it predicts | Where it fails / is silent | Your account |
|---|
The most persuasive Review papers select diagnostic phenomena — cases where rivals make different predictions — and show their theory gets these right while saying clearly where rivals do not. "Systematic evaluation of alternative theories" is in the journal's own scope statement; positioning is where that evaluation begins.
Avoid the false-novelty stance ("no one has modeled this") when a standing model could be applied — a reviewer will apply it for you.
【Conversation】[the modeling tradition / theoretical debate entered]
【Rival map】[phenomenon → rival → its prediction → its failure → your account] (table)
【Stance】subsumption | adjudication | extension — with the limiting/diagnostic condition
【Steelman check】rivals stated at strongest, current form: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-theory-construction (if model not built) → psychrev-argument-development
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psychological-review-skillsPositions a Cognitive Psychology manuscript against rival models and prior empirical programs by framing the theoretical question and showing why existing evidence cannot settle it.
Derives 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.
Positions Psychological Science manuscripts against the literature with sharp gap/contribution framing and ~40 reference budgets. Handles reviewer feedback about incremental contributions.