From annual-review-of-economics-skills
Revises Annual Review of Economics reviews for the ARE voice: authoritative, accessible, signposted, with strong opening and forward-looking close. Polishes prose and structure after framework and evidence are settled.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-economics-skills:arecon-writing-styleThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework and evidence appraisal are settled and it is time to make the review *read* well
An ARE review is read by economists outside the subfield — smart, but not specialists here. The voice is a trusted, fair expert teaching the field to a colleague from another area. Four qualities define it:
An ARE introduction differs from a research-paper intro:
frame the field (what it studies, why it matters to economists broadly) → why a synthesis is needed now (new evidence / method shift / policy salience) → the organizing question and the spine (the map the reader will be given) → what the review concludes and the open questions (the payoff, stated up front) → roadmap (brief).
State the bottom line early. A review that withholds its conclusions to the end wastes the outsider's time and reads as indecisive.
ARE prizes the future-agenda ending more than most outlets: the empty cells of the framework become a concrete research agenda — what we do not yet know, what evidence would resolve it, which methods are ripe to apply. An ARE review that ends with "more research is needed" has wasted its most valuable section; name the specific open questions instead.
A review abstract describes what the review does for the reader — the field, why a synthesis now, the organizing idea, the headline state-of-knowledge takeaway — not a single empirical finding. Avoid "we estimate / we find a coefficient of…"; that is a primary-paper abstract. Confirm length/format limits on the Annual Reviews author pages (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
Annual Reviews uses its own format, including a numbered/name reference style distinct from AEA author-year (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); the production editor applies house style at acceptance, so the delivered draft need not pre-conform, but the reference data must be complete and accurate. Keep prose crisp: length is a privilege, and every section must earn its pages by advancing the argument about the field.
【Opening arc】frame → why-now → question+spine → conclusions+open-questions → roadmap? Y/N
【Bottom line early】state of knowledge stated up front? Y/N
【Accessibility】intuition-first; jargon controlled; adjacent economist can follow? Y/N
【Signposting】architecture mirrors spine; periodic cues? Y/N
【Synthesis prose】papers in dialogue, not listed? Y/N
【Forward agenda】close names concrete open questions? Y/N
【Abstract】review-style (contribution to reader), not a single estimate? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-editor-strategy → arecon-submission
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-economics-skillsRevises sociology review prose for the ARSoc voice: authoritative, accessible to outsiders, signposted, with a strong opening and forward-looking close.
Polishes Academy of Management Annals reviews for the house voice: authoritative, integrative, agenda-setting prose with a problem-first opening and contribution-stating abstract. Use after framework and evidence are settled.
Polishes JEL survey prose to match the authoritative, accessible, long-form voice expected by the Journal of Economic Literature. Use after the framework is settled.