Stats
Actions
Tags
From annual-review-of-psychology-skills
Imposes an analytical structure or taxonomy on psychology literature for Annual Review of Psychology reviews. Selects spine type (taxonomy, process model, etc.) to turn a reading list into a coherent argument.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-psychology-skills:arpsych-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 studies
The most-cited reason review articles fail is that they are annotated bibliographies: study-after-study summaries with no organizing idea. A great ARPsych review imposes a structure the field did not have — a taxonomy, a unifying model, a sequence of questions, or a process diagram — that makes scattered work legible to a psychologist from an adjacent area. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. ARPsych's accessibility mandate raises the bar: the spine must be graspable by a non-specialist psychologist (a social psychologist reading a memory review) on one read. Choose it deliberately:
| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism/construct | the field is fragmented into incommensurable subliteratures |
| Process model | stages of a mechanism (input → process → output) | the topic is a pathway (e.g., emotion generation, encoding→retrieval) |
| Levels of analysis | from neural to behavioral to social | the value is integrating across explanatory levels |
| Question sequence | a logical chain of sub-questions | the field has a natural "first know X, then Y" order |
| Paradigm/era | how thinking evolved and why | the evolution of ideas is itself the lesson |
| Theory contest | rival accounts of the same phenomenon | progress hinges on adjudicating competing theories |
Pick one primary spine; a second axis can order studies within a section, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.
Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (studies that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.
The spine is also what lets an ARPsych 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 assigned-length envelope at once (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.
【Spine type】taxonomy / process / levels / question-sequence / paradigm / theory-contest
【Argument about the field】"<one sentence the review makes>"
【Categories】<the cells / stages / sub-questions, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction the framework explains>
【Open questions】<empty cells surfaced as the future agenda>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward studies each placed? Y/N
【Accessibility】an adjacent psychologist can restate the spine? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance (cover the cells fairly)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-psychology-skillsImposes an analytical/conceptual structure on psychology research for a PoPS integrative review. Designs the unifying argument (spine) that turns a reading list into a claim 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.
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.