From annual-review-of-economics-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-economics-skills:arecon-organizing-frameworkThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The evidence matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of papers
The most-cited reason review articles fail is that they are annotated bibliographies: paper-after-paper summaries with no organizing idea. A great ARE review imposes a structure the field did not have — a taxonomy, a unifying framework, a sequence of questions, or a simple model — that makes scattered work legible to an economist from an adjacent field. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. ARE's accessibility mandate raises the bar further: the spine must be graspable by a non-specialist on one read. Choose it deliberately:
| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism/approach | the field is fragmented into incommensurable camps |
| Unifying model | a simple framework whose parameters index the studies | results disagree because they estimate different parameters of one structure |
| Question sequence | a logical chain of sub-questions | the field has a natural "first know X, then Y" order |
| Chronological/paradigm | how thinking evolved and why | the evolution of ideas is itself the lesson |
| Methods spectrum | from least to most credible designs | the review's value is appraising what is actually known |
Pick one primary spine; a second axis can order papers within a section, 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 spine is also what lets an ARE review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory studies can be cited in clusters within their cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining work. This is how you honor coverage and the ~25–40-page accessibility envelope at once (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.
【Spine type】taxonomy / unifying-model / question-sequence / paradigm / methods-spectrum
【Argument about the field】"<one sentence the review makes>"
【Categories】<the cells / sub-questions, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction the framework explains>
【Open questions】<empty cells surfaced as the future agenda>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward papers each placed? Y/N
【Accessibility】an adjacent economist can restate the spine? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-evidence-standards (appraise study credibility + balance the cells fairly)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-economics-skillsDesigns an analytical taxonomy or organizing framework for JEL survey literature, turning a reading list into a structured argument about the field.
Designs an analytical taxonomy or organizing framework for an Annual Review of Sociology literature review, turning a reading list into a structured argument.
Designs the organizing framework for Academy of Management Annals reviews, turning scattered papers into a theory-advancing 'new way of seeing' the field.