From amr-skills
Routes AMR theory-building manuscript workflow by diagnosing current stage and invoking the appropriate sub-skill.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/amr-skills:amr-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you **which
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which amr- skill to use at the current stage* of an Academy of Management Review manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as AMR — the Academy of Management's premier theory-development journal. AMR publishes conceptual articles that build new theory; per its scope, submissions "must extend theory in ways that develop testable knowledge-based claims." It contains no datasets, no hypothesis tests, no results section — empirical hypothesis-testing is the lane of its sibling AMJ. The deliverable is a genuinely new theoretical contribution: new constructs, a new process model, or a reconceptualization — developed with rigorous logic, explicit assumptions, propositions, and boundary conditions. If the project has data and tests, it belongs at AMJ / ASQ / SMJ, not AMR.
The AMR contribution bar is set by two AMR-published editorials worth keeping in view at every stage: Whetten's "What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" (1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371) — the What/How/Why/Who-Where-When rubric — and Suddaby's "Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization" (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419). Pure-theory exemplars built by argument alone: Oliver, "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes" (1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002); Dyer & Singh, "The Relational View" (1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632). References follow APA-style (AOM house style).
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; not sure there is a real theoretical puzzle | amr-topic-selection |
| Have a puzzle but constructs/relationships/logic are not built | amr-theory-development |
| Unsure which conversation to enter or what to "challenge" | amr-literature-positioning |
| Propositions exist but the construction method feels thin | amr-methods |
| Propositions stated but underlying logical argument is missing | amr-data-analysis |
| Cannot articulate what is NEW vs. prior theory | amr-contribution-framing |
| Box-and-arrow figure has no mechanism / typology not earning its keep | amr-tables-figures |
| Prose reads like a literature review, not an argument | amr-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne preflight | amr-submission |
| Want to understand AMR's developmental, multi-round review | amr-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to write the response document | amr-rebuttal |
amr-topic-selection — lock the theoretical puzzle (the "why doesn't existing theory explain this?")amr-literature-positioning — identify the conversation to challenge and extendamr-theory-development — build constructs, relationships, propositions, boundary conditionsamr-methods — theory-construction craft: construct domains, mechanisms, assumptionsamr-data-analysis — argument development: logic checks, counterfactuals, alternative explanationsamr-contribution-framing — differentiate the new theory from prior workamr-tables-figures — finalize the conceptual figure / typology / propositions tableamr-writing-style — AOM house style; argument-driven prose (polish)amr-submission — ScholarOne preflightamr-review-process — understand the developmental review you are about to enteramr-rebuttal — after the R&R
amr-writing-styleis a late-stage polish. Do not polish prose before the theory's logic stands up (amr-data-analysis) and the contribution is differentiated (amr-contribution-framing).
amr-topic-selectionamr-literature-positioningamr-data-analysisamr-theory-development then amr-data-analysisamr-contribution-framingamr-tables-figuresamr-writing-styleamr-submissionamr-review-process then amr-rebuttalIf the manuscript has data, measures, and statistical tests, an empirical-management stack (AMJ / ASQ / SMJ) fits better. The core split:
A common failure is sending an AMR draft that is really an under-powered empirical paper, or an AMJ draft whose "theory" is a literature summary. Pick the right stack early.
amr-literature-positioning and jump to building — reviewers first ask whose conversation you are in.amr-tables-figures pretty up a model before the propositions and mechanisms exist.amr-rebuttal draft a response before the theory itself has actually been revised.Volatile specifics (editor-in-chief, exact length/abstract limits, fees, APA edition, acceptance rate) change or could not be machine-verified — see
resources/official-source-map.mdand confirm on the official AMR / AOM author page.
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin amr-skillsDirects which amj-* sub-skill to use for Academy of Management Journal manuscript workflows, from topic selection through data analysis and theory development.
Interprets AMR decision letters and explains the developmental, multi-round review process focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness.
Routes between amann-* sub-skills to sequence a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for Academy of Management Annals submissions.