Open call

Review one spec. Three claims. An afternoon.

Every paradigm specification in this catalog is currently sourced — literature-linked, drafted with LLM assistance, and unreviewed by a named expert. We are looking for the first reviewers to change that, one spec at a time.

What we are asking for

Not an endorsement of the project. Not a paper. One spec, read against three separable claims, each signed or contested by name. The mechanical work is done: the spec is drafted, the references are DOI-verified, the executable contract runs, and a dossier lays out exactly what the machine can and cannot show you for each claim.

You review the spec, never a passing machine check. A green conformance result is an instrumentation guarantee. It is an input to your judgment, never a substitute for it.
The claims are separable. They need different expertise. Attesting one and contesting another is an honest, useful outcome — not a failure.
Every attestation is named, dated, scoped, and revocable. Your sign-off states what it does and does not cover, and can be moved to contested later.
Nothing is published in your name without your say-so, and reviewing a spec here makes no claim about any public task library.

The three claims

Claim 1

Contrast identification

Does the defining contrast correctly identify the paradigm — did we draft the right operationalisation?

Whether this contrast is the defining one, versus the alternatives, is the part no test can settle. You are reviewing our authorship.

Typically a cognitive psychologist (attention / control)

Claim 2

Construct operationalisation

Is the contrast a defensible measure of the construct it is named for?

The instrumentation layer is silent here by construction: a task can be wired exactly as specified and still not measure what the name promises.

Typically a construct-validity / individual-differences view

Claim 3

Psychometric conditioning

Are the reported numbers correctly conditioned — population, version, trial count — and not over-generalised?

Effect magnitudes and reliability estimates hold under conditions. The spec has to say which, or it is quietly wrong.

Typically a methodologist / psychometrician

How a sign-off changes the record

expert-annotated is not a badge anyone can award themselves. It is derived from the three claim-level attestations: all three attested by named reviewers and the record derives expert-annotated; any one contested and it derives contested; otherwise it stays where it is. The validator enforces the agreement, so no machine check can ever mint human review.

sourcedLiterature-linked, drafted with LLM assistance or by a contributor, and unreviewed. The honest default.
corroboratedIndependently cross-checked against the cited sources, but not signed by a named expert.
expert-annotatedAll three claims attested by named experts. Derived, never self-declared.
contestedA named expert disputes at least one claim. A real outcome, kept visible.

Specs open for review

All of them, today. Pick the one closest to your work — the Eriksen Flanker Task has the most supporting material assembled and is the intended first vertical.

Specification	Family	Current state
Color Delayed Estimation (Visual Working Memory)	continuous-report	sourced — unreviewed
Eriksen Flanker Task	congruency	sourced — unreviewed
Go/No-Go	go-no-go	sourced — unreviewed
Lexical Decision Task	speeded-classification	sourced — unreviewed
Motion Coherence Discrimination (Random-Dot Kinematogram)	psychophysics	sourced — unreviewed
N-back	n-back	sourced — unreviewed
Sequential Congruency (Gratton effect)	sequential-congruency	sourced — unreviewed
Simon Task	congruency	sourced — unreviewed
Stop-Signal Task	stop-signal	sourced — unreviewed
Stroop Task	congruency	sourced — unreviewed
Task Switching	task-switching	sourced — unreviewed

To volunteer

Open an issue on the repository saying which spec and which claim(s) you would take, and we will send the attestation dossier for that spec — the spec, its references, the evidence the harness can show for each claim, an explicit list of what it cannot show, and a scope template for your sign-off.

Offer a review on GitHub Read the specs first

Prefer not to use GitHub? Reach the maintainer through the maintainer's GitHub profile.