From psychological-review-skills
Polishes Psychological Review manuscripts to APA house style and theory-paper register with mechanism-first prose and model vocabulary.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psychological-review-skills:psychrev-writing-styleThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
> Polish **after** the derivations stand up (`psychrev-argument-development`) and the
Polish after the derivations stand up (
psychrev-argument-development) and the contribution is differentiated (psychrev-contribution-framing). Prose cannot rescue a theory whose logic does not hold.
A Review introduction moves: the phenomenon/tension → the standing theories and what they
cannot do → the move this paper makes (the model/mechanism) → the contribution, stated early
→ a brief roadmap. State what the paper delivers within the first page or two; do not bury
the theoretical move under a survey. The arc is the same disciplined shape used in the worked
example in resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.
The single most common tell of a wrong-register draft is empirical vocabulary. At Psychological Review you write about a model, its assumptions, mechanisms, parameters, predictions, and scope — not about "the study," "we found," "results," "significant," or "p < .05" (you ran no experiment). Existing data are evidence the model confronts, never the contribution.
| Avoid (empirical register) | Use (theory register) |
|---|---|
| "We found that..." | "The model predicts / entails that..." |
| "Our results show..." | "The derivation shows... / Simulation shows..." |
| "was significant (p < .05)" | "the predicted ordering holds / the signature appears" |
| "we ran a study / experiment" | "we derive... / we simulate... / existing data show..." |
| "limitation of this study" | "boundary condition of the theory" |
| "future research should test" | "the theory makes the falsifiable prediction that..." |
【Intro arc】tension → standing-theory gap → the move → contribution-early → roadmap: yes / fix
【Register】no empirical vocabulary; data = evidence, not contribution: yes / fix
【Definitions/notation】constructs & parameters defined once, used consistently: yes / fix
【APA】7th-ed citations; abstract ≤ limit; theory-organized headings: yes / fix
【Next step】psychrev-submission (Editorial Manager preflight)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psychological-review-skillsPolishes Journal of Applied Psychology manuscripts to APA 7th edition style with a contribution-forward narrative arc.
Drafts and polishes Cognitive Psychology (Elsevier) manuscripts — long-form, integrative articles weaving multiple experiments and a formal model into one continuous theoretical argument.
Guides prose drafting for Annual Review of Psychology reviews, shaping authoritative-yet-accessible voice for a broad psych readership.