From annual-review-of-sociology-skills
Audits coverage and even-handedness in sociological literature reviews, helping calibrate completeness vs. selectivity and ensure fairness across schools, methods, and authors.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-sociology-skills:arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balanceThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework is set and you are filling cells with the literature
An ARSoc review must be comprehensive in coverage yet selective in emphasis. The reader should trust that nothing important is missing, while the prose foregrounds what matters. Resolve the tension by tiering the corpus:
| Tier | Treatment |
|---|---|
| Foundational / field-defining | discussed in the text, with what they established and their limits |
| Important contributions | grouped and weighed within the framework's cells; cited with their finding |
| Confirmatory / incremental | cited in clusters ("see also …") to demonstrate coverage without bloating prose |
| Tangential | cited only where they bear on a specific claim; not every adjacent study belongs |
Comprehensiveness is proven by the citation set (the saturation log from arsoc-literature-synthesis); selectivity is exercised in the prose. A review that discusses every study at equal length has abdicated the editorial judgment that is its value.
ARSoc is the survey of record for a subfield: its account of a debate becomes the discipline's shared reference. That obliges genuine even-handedness:
If you have published in the subfield, the review must not read as a retrospective of your program. Guardrails:
【Tiering】corpus split foundational/important/confirmatory/tangential? Y/N
【Comprehensiveness evidence】saturation log + citation set support "nothing important missing"? Y/N
【Steelman】each rival school stated at its strongest? Y/N
【Method balance】quant/qual/computational/theoretical each weighed fairly? Y/N
【Conflict handling】reconciled by credibility + what-is-studied (not vote-count)? Y/N
【Debate】evidence-to-settle stated; author's read labelled? Y/N
【Self-citation audit】own work at warranted tier; emphasis identity-blind? Y/N
【Next step】→ arsoc-tables-figures (who-found-what tables + conceptual figure)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-sociology-skillsAudits a JEL survey for completeness vs. selectivity and fairness across schools, authors, and controversies, including guarding against over-citation of the author's own work.
Calibrates completeness vs. selectivity in literature reviews for the journal Progress in Human Geography. Ensures fair engagement across theoretical traditions and reflexive positioning.
Audits an Annual Review of Psychology draft for even-handed coverage across labs, paradigms, and rival theories, weights evidence by credibility, and flags self-promotion in citations.