From ahr-skills
Guides source criticism, primary vs. secondary source analysis, archival citation in Chicago notes, and image permissions for AHR manuscripts.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ahr-skills:ahr-sources-and-archivesThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
History at the AHR stands or falls on its **primary sources** and on how critically you read them. This
History at the AHR stands or falls on its primary sources and on how critically you read them. This skill is about marshaling evidence, source criticism, citing archival material correctly, and the author's responsibilities for images and permissions. It does not, ever, license inventing or embellishing a source.
ahr-citation-and-style)The single most damaging report at the AHR is that the evidence cannot bear the claim. Because the AHA flagship judges history on the quality and criticism of its sources, this charge takes several distinct forms, each with a different remedy.
| Form of the "too thin" charge | What the reviewer means | The venue-specific remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Too few documents | One striking source carries a structural claim | Widen the base or narrow the claim to what the documents support |
| Uncriticized sources | The document is read as a transparent window | Add provenance, genre, and bias analysis; read with and against the grain |
| Unrepresentative sample | A vivid exception generalized | Weigh typicality; flag the source as exceptional if it is |
| Ignored silences | Absent voices unexamined | Name who the archive excludes and bound the claim accordingly |
| Unretrievable citations | Another scholar could not find the source | Specify archive, collection, series, box/folder, and date |
A manuscript reconstructs a peasant revolt from the trial records that condemned its leaders. Read as a window, the records "show" the revolt as the prosecution described it — and a reviewer will say the archival base is too thin because it is one-sided. Read critically, the same records become richer: their genre (judicial interrogation under coercion) and provenance (produced by the victorious authorities) are analyzed, the rebels' aims are reconstructed by reading against the grain of the charges, and the silence of the unprosecuted is named as a limit on the claim. The article now cites each document by collection, box, and folder so another historian can return to it, weighs whether these defendants were typical, and states plainly what the sources can and cannot establish.
【Core sources】the key primary materials and where they live
【Source criticism】provenance / bias / silences / representativeness per key source
【Primary vs secondary】any borderline cases resolved for this question
【Citation form】archive + collection + box/folder noted? [Y/N]
【Images】permissions plan + alt-text drafted? [Y/N]
【Next】ahr-interpretation-and-method
../../resources/external_tools.md — archives, finding aids, databases, transcription/OCR tools../../resources/official-source-map.md — AHR image alt-text and permissions expectationsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ahr-skillsRoutes AHR manuscript work to the correct sub-skill based on the article lifecycle stage, from topic selection through revision.
Evaluates history manuscripts for fit with The American Historical Review, including argument significance, historiographical framing, and desk-reject heuristics.
Plans rigorous source work for JAAR religious-studies articles: primary texts, traditions, historical documents, material/visual sources, or ethnographic fieldwork. Guides citation, translation, provenance, and disconfirming evidence.