Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Crim Theory Building

ASecurity

Use when building the theoretical argument of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript into a field-level contribution. Criminology rewards an explicit mechanism, scope conditions, and observable implications over a bare crime correlation, whether the work tests, extends, or adjudicates a criminological theory. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

1,052 stars
0 votes
0 copies
1 views
Added 6/5/2026
ai-agentstestinggit

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/5/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill crim-theory-building --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Crim Theory Building?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Crim Theory Building
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-crim-theory-building/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-crim-theory-building)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: crim-theory-building
description: Use when building the theoretical argument of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript into a field-level contribution. Criminology rewards an explicit mechanism, scope conditions, and observable implications over a bare crime correlation, whether the work tests, extends, or adjudicates a criminological theory. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
---

# Theory & Argument Building (crim-theory-building)

At *Criminology* a result is not a contribution until it is attached to a **mechanism the field can use
elsewhere.** This skill turns crime findings into theory: explicit causal stories, scope conditions,
and observable implications drawn from (or pushing against) the field's theoretical traditions.

## When to trigger

- The empirics are strong but the "so what / why does crime behave this way" is thin
- A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "just a finding"
- You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
- You are extending or adjudicating between two criminological theories

## Build the argument

1. **Concept.** Define the key constructs precisely — offending vs. arrest, desistance vs. a lull,
   victimization vs. reporting, legitimacy vs. compliance. Distinguish each from its neighbors.
2. **Mechanism.** The causal story: who does what, why, under what incentives, controls, opportunities,
   or strains. Make it a *process*, not a regression coefficient.
3. **Observable implications.** What we should see if the mechanism operates — and what we should *not*
   see. These become the tests in `crim-research-design` (e.g., a within-individual change in offending
   following a turning point; displacement vs. diffusion around a hot spot).
4. **Scope conditions.** Where the argument holds and where it does not — by age, offense type,
   developmental stage, place, or institutional context. Portability ≠ universality.

## Engage the theoretical tradition (the Criminology move)

- **Locate** the argument in a recognizable theory (control, social learning, strain/GST, routine
  activity/opportunity, life-course/age-graded informal social control, labeling, deterrence,
  procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy) — or say plainly how it revises one.
- **Adjudicate** where you can: state what your argument predicts that the leading rival theory does
  not, so the test in `crim-research-design` can separate them.
- **Distinguish between- vs. within-person** logics explicitly — many criminology theories live or die
  on whether the effect is a stable trait or a within-individual change.

## The "portability" test (Criminology-specific)

Ask: *Could a criminologist working on a different offense, age group, or setting import this
mechanism?* If yes, you have a field-level contribution. If it only works for your exact sample,
tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to `crim-topic-selection`).

## Anti-patterns

- "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where possible
- Naming a theory in the intro but never deriving a testable implication from it
- Conflating between-person association with within-person change
- Universal claims with no scope conditions (e.g., "deterrence works") with no offense/context limits
- Burying the mechanism under the regression tables

## Output format

```
【Core claim】one sentence
【Tradition】theory engaged / extended / adjudicated
【Mechanism】the causal/behavioral story
【Observable implications】testable consequences (incl. within-person) → research-design
【Scope conditions】where it holds / fails (age, offense, place, context)
【Portability】who else in criminology can use this argument
【Next】crim-research-design
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — life-course and longitudinal data for testing mechanisms
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Criminology scope and theory-forward expectations

Attribution

brycewang-stanfordbrycewang-stanford
View sourceMore from brycewang-stanford →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Related Skills

Caveman

Ultra-compressed communication mode that cuts output tokens while keeping technical accuracy. Levels: lite, full, ultra and the wenyan variants. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief" or "less tokens".

1066601 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

693161 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3351 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

651 votes

math-skill

A comprehensive mathematical reasoning skill for AI assistants — handles arithmetic to research-level problems with rigorous step-by-step reasoning, systematic verification, and transparent uncertainty handling

381 votes
View all in ai-agents →