From annual-review-of-psychology-skills
Guides prose drafting for Annual Review of Psychology reviews, shaping authoritative-yet-accessible voice for a broad psych readership.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-psychology-skills:arpsych-writing-styleThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework, balance, and exhibits are settled; it is time to write (or rewrite) prose
ARPsych reviews are read across all of psychology and by adjacent fields. The register is authoritative but accessible: written by a leading expert, readable by a smart psychologist outside the subfield, and usable in a graduate seminar. The two failure poles are (1) a dense specialist treatise only insiders can parse, and (2) a chatty overview with no analytical edge. Aim between them: deep but legible.
| Principle | In practice |
|---|---|
| Argument forward | Every section advances the spine; the reader always knows where they are in the framework |
| Define on first use | Spell out constructs, paradigms, and acronyms for the adjacent reader |
| Show the mechanism | Explain why an effect occurs, not just that N studies found it |
| Synthesize, don't list | Discuss cell-defining work; cluster confirmatory studies in citations |
| Calibrated confidence | "Robust", "mixed", "contested", "unknown" used precisely (ties to balance) |
| Active, concrete prose | Prefer plain verbs over nominalizations; one idea per sentence |
The introduction must promise exactly what the review delivers — so write it once the spine is final. A strong ARPsych intro:
The abstract is the most-read paragraph: organizing question, the framework, the headline synthesis, and the open agenda — no method-section throat-clearing.
ARPsych reviews are expected to end by pointing forward: the open questions, the methodological needs, the contradictions awaiting resolution — ideally the empty cells of your framework (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). This section is a large part of why the field reads the review; it is not a perfunctory wrap-up.
A co-authored review must read as one author. Assign a single integrator to do a unifying pass; differing section voices are a common reviewer complaint.
【Voice】authoritative + accessible; passes non-specialist read? Y/N
【Argument-forward】every section advances the spine? Y/N
【Definitions】constructs/acronyms defined on first use? Y/N
【Confidence calibration】robust/mixed/contested/unknown precise? Y/N
【Abstract + intro】written last; state organizing question + spine? Y/N
【Future directions】substantive, tied to framework's open cells? Y/N
【One voice】multi-author integrated? (N/A if single author)
【Next step】→ arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility (document search / meta-analysis)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-psychology-skillsPolishes prose and structure of PoPS pieces for the PoPS voice: broad, provocative, accessible, with strong opening, forward-looking close, APA style, and review abstract.
Revises sociology review prose for the ARSoc voice: authoritative, accessible to outsiders, signposted, with a strong opening and forward-looking close.
Polishes Psychological Review manuscripts to APA house style and theory-paper register with mechanism-first prose and model vocabulary.