From annual-review-of-economics-skills
Generates three exhibit types for Annual Review of Economics (ARE) reviews: who-found-what summary tables, conceptual/framework figures, and meta-evidence exhibits that synthesize across studies.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-economics-skills:arecon-tables-figuresThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The synthesis is done and an adjacent-field reader needs to *see* the field at a glance
ARE exhibits summarize across the literature; they do not present the author's own estimation. The workhorses:
| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes |
|---|---|---|
| Who-found-what summary table | one row per study (or per design class): question/estimand, method, sample, finding (direction + magnitude), credibility note | rows ordered by the framework's cells, not chronology; columns let the reader compare comparable objects |
| Conceptual / framework figure | render the organizing spine — taxonomy tree, mechanism diagram, the simple unifying model | this is often the review's signature exhibit; it should be restate-able from memory by a non-specialist |
| Meta-evidence exhibit | a forest-style plot, a timeline of methods, a coverage map | use only when the estimates are commensurable; otherwise it manufactures false consensus |
arecon-evidence-standards).Because the readership is cross-field, the framework figure carries disproportionate weight: it is what an adjacent economist remembers and reuses. Invest in one diagram that renders the spine cleanly — a taxonomy tree, a mechanism flow, or the simple model — so a reader who recalls nothing else can reconstruct the field's structure from it. Annual Reviews production supports full-color figures; design for legibility in the published two-column format and confirm current figure specs on the author pages (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
If you assemble effect sizes into a quantitative synthesis (forest plot, meta-regression), you are doing a meta-analysis, with its assumptions — comparable estimands, publication-bias diagnostics, weighting. Do this only where the literature genuinely supports it; otherwise a qualitative who-found-what table is more honest than a spurious pooled number. ARE readers include the methodologists who would catch invalid pooling. If you do run a meta-analysis, its data/code should be reproducible (see arecon-submission).
When a figure from a reviewed paper is central, prefer a re-drawn synthesis figure (your own panel placing several studies on common axes) over copying one paper's exhibit — it serves the review's argument and avoids consensus-by-accident. If you reproduce an original figure, attribute it and secure any permission Annual Reviews requires (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
【Exhibit set】<list: summary tables / conceptual figure / meta-evidence>
【Summary table】rows by framework cell; comparable estimands only? Y/N
【Credibility column】present for every finding? Y/N
【Conceptual figure】renders the spine; restate-able from memory? Y/N
【Meta-evidence】pools only commensurable estimates (or omitted)? Y/N
【Sourcing】every cell traces to the evidence matrix? Y/N
【Specs/permissions】confirmed on Annual Reviews author pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ arecon-writing-style (weave exhibits into the synthesis prose)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-economics-skillsBuilds summary who-found-what tables, conceptual framework figures, and meta-evidence exhibits for Annual Review of Sociology review papers.
Builds review exhibits for Academy of Management Annals: framework figures, synthesis tables, search/coverage exhibits, and gap matrices. Does not produce regression tables.
Builds exhibits for JEL surveys: who-found-what summary tables, conceptual/framework figures, and meta-evidence plots. Ensures credible comparison of studies with self-contained captions and sourced cells.