From academy-of-management-annals-skills
Appraises cumulative evidence quality and balance in an Academy of Management Annals review, weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academy-of-management-annals-skills:amann-evidence-standardsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework is set and you are filling cells with the literature
An Annals review carries no estimates of its own — but it is not therefore neutral. The "attitude" is disciplined critical appraisal: you judge how good the cumulative evidence is, reconcile conflicts by credibility, and state where the field's confidence is and is not warranted. This is the review-craft replacement for primary-research robustness checks: you are appraising other people's designs, not defending your own.
A review must be comprehensive in coverage yet selective in emphasis — long (~50 pages) but not an inventory. Resolve the tension by tiering the corpus:
| Tier | Treatment |
|---|---|
| Foundational / field-defining | discussed in text — what it established and its limits |
| Important contributions | grouped and weighed within the framework's cells; cited with their finding |
| Confirmatory / incremental | cited in clusters ("see also …") to show coverage without bloating prose |
| Tangential | cited only where it bears on a specific claim |
Comprehensiveness is proven by the citation set (the saturation log from amann-literature-synthesis); selectivity is exercised in the prose. Equal-length summaries of every paper abdicate the editorial judgment that is the review's value.
Management findings conflict constantly. Reconcile them by why they differ, never by tally:
Annals is the review-of-the-field: its account of a debate becomes the field's shared reference, and the surveyed authors often referee the review. Balance is therefore both ethical and strategic.
【Tiering】corpus split foundational/important/confirmatory/tangential? Y/N
【Comprehensiveness evidence】saturation log + citation set support "nothing important missing"? Y/N
【Conflict handling】reconciled by credibility + construct + context (not vote-count)? Y/N
【Evidence quality】strong/mixed/thin stated per claim? Y/N
【Steelman】each rival school stated at its strongest? Y/N
【Self-citation audit】own work at warranted tier; emphasis identity-blind? Y/N
【Attitude labelled】provocative reads marked as author's judgment? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-tables-figures (who-found-what tables + framework figure)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin academy-of-management-annals-skillsAppraises credibility of primary studies in an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) synthesis, weighing conflicting evidence and auditing even-handedness across competing views.
Audits coverage and even-handedness in sociological literature reviews, helping calibrate completeness vs. selectivity and ensure fairness across schools, methods, and authors.
Audits a JEL survey for completeness vs. selectivity and fairness across schools, authors, and controversies, including guarding against over-citation of the author's own work.