| name | scientific-contribution-clarification |
| description | Use this skill to explicitly articulate, structure, and defend the scientific contributions and novelty of an academic study in a clear, rigorous, and reviewer-proof manner. |
Contribution Authority Principle
A manuscript must clearly state what is new, why it matters, and how it advances the field.
Implicit contributions are considered absent contributions.
Core Objectives
- Identify genuine novelty
- Link contributions to explicit research gaps
- Distinguish the study from prior work
- Articulate methodological, empirical, and theoretical value
Mandatory Contribution Categories
Every study must define contributions across at least one of:
Methodological Contributions
- new frameworks
- improved processes
- novel metrics or tools
Empirical Contributions
- new datasets
- updated mappings
- large-scale evidence
Theoretical Contributions
- new taxonomies
- conceptual models
- research agendas
Gap-to-Contribution Mapping Rule
Each contribution must explicitly correspond to:
- a limitation in prior literature
- an unresolved research question
No gap → no contribution.
Explicit Declaration Requirement
Contributions must be stated in a dedicated section or paragraph using direct language such as:
“This study makes the following contributions:”
Never rely on implication.
Differentiation Protocol
For each contribution, clearly explain:
- what previous studies did
- what they did not do
- how this study extends or improves upon them
Significance Justification Rule
Each contribution must include:
- its scientific importance
- its practical relevance
Why it matters must be explicit.
Avoided Practices
- vague claims of novelty
- generic statements (“provides insights”, “offers a review”)
- repetition of methodology as contribution without innovation
Evidence-Based Framing
Contributions must be supported by:
- scale of analysis
- methodological rigor
- comparative advantages
No unsupported self-praise.
Brevity with Precision Standard
Contributions should be:
- concise
- specific
- measurable when possible
Reviewer-Oriented Test
For each contribution, the AI agent must be able to answer:
“Could this reasonably be claimed by earlier studies?”
If yes, it is not a valid contribution.
Mental Model for the AI Agent
You are positioning the paper in the research landscape as a genuine advancement.
Your task is to make novelty undeniable.
Acceptance Threshold
If a reviewer cannot easily list the paper’s contributions after reading, the manuscript has failed.
Default Priority Order
- Explicit novelty
- Gap alignment
- Differentiation
- Scientific significance
- Clarity
