Stats
Actions
Tags
From academy-of-management-annals-skills
Designs the organizing framework for Academy of Management Annals reviews, turning scattered papers into a theory-advancing 'new way of seeing' the field.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academy-of-management-annals-skills:amann-organizing-frameworkThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The coding matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of papers
Annals is "reviews with an attitude": it does not reward accurate summary, it rewards theory advancement through synthesis. The acceptance bar is whether the review imposes an organizing logic the field did not have — a typology, a process model, an integrating construct, a reconciliation of rival camps — that makes scattered work legible and generates a research agenda. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. This is what separates Annals from a descriptive review and from its sibling AMR, where new theory stands alone rather than emerging from a literature. Choose the spine deliberately:
| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Typology / taxonomy | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism, form, or approach | the field is fragmented into incommensurable camps |
| Process / stage model | a temporal or causal sequence (how a phenomenon unfolds) | the literature studies pieces of one process in isolation |
| Integrating construct | a higher-order concept that subsumes scattered variables | many parallel constructs are really facets of one thing |
| Dialectic / reconciliation | thesis–antithesis–synthesis across rival positions | a live debate has hardened into camps that talk past each other |
| Multi-level architecture | individual ↔ team ↔ organization ↔ field linkages | the literature is siloed by level of analysis |
Pick one primary spine; a second axis can be a within-section ordering, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.
Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (papers that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.
The framework is also what lets the review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory work is cited in clusters within its cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining studies. A review without a spine must either summarize everything (bloat) or omit silently (gaps). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.
【Spine type】typology / process / integrating-construct / dialectic / multi-level
【New way of seeing the field】"<one sentence the review argues>"
【Categories】<the cells / stages / levels, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction or debate the framework explains>
【Future-research agenda】<empty cells surfaced as the agenda>
【Attitude】<the position the framework takes — what the field got wrong/missed>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward papers each placed? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-evidence-standards (fill cells with appraised, balanced evidence)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin academy-of-management-annals-skillsDesigns an analytical taxonomy or organizing framework for an Annual Review of Sociology literature review, turning a reading list into a structured argument.
Imposes an analytical structure or taxonomy on economics literature for Annual Review of Economics reviews, turning a reading list into an argument about the field.
Imposes an analytical/conceptual structure on psychology research for a PoPS integrative review. Designs the unifying argument (spine) that turns a reading list into a claim about the field.