From perspectives-on-psychological-science-skills
Polishes prose and structure of PoPS pieces for the PoPS voice: broad, provocative, accessible, with strong opening, forward-looking close, APA style, and review abstract.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/perspectives-on-psychological-science-skills:ppsych-writing-styleThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework and balance are settled and it is time to make the piece *read* well
A PoPS piece is read by psychologists outside the subfield — smart, but not specialists here. The voice is a trusted, fair expert making a big-picture argument to a colleague from another area. Four qualities define it:
A PoPS introduction differs from an empirical-paper intro:
frame the question (what is at stake for the field broadly) → why now (new evidence / method shift / reform debate) → the claim and the spine (the reframing the reader will be given) → what the piece concludes and the open agenda (the payoff, stated up front) → roadmap (brief).
State the bottom line early. A perspective that withholds its claim to the end wastes the outsider's time and reads as indecisive.
PoPS prizes the future-agenda ending: the empty cells of the framework become a concrete agenda — what we do not yet know, what evidence would resolve it, which methods or practices the field should adopt. A PoPS piece that ends with "more research is needed" has wasted its most valuable section; name the specific open questions and the call to action.
The abstract is ≤ 200 words (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准) and describes what the piece does for the reader — the question, why a synthesis/argument now, the organizing idea, the headline take-home — not a single finding. Avoid "we found an effect of…"; that is an empirical-paper abstract.
PoPS is a SAGE/APS journal; manuscripts follow APA style for references, statistics, and exhibits (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准 — confirm the current APA edition and any house deviations on the SAGE author pages). There is no strict page limit for stand-alone articles, but concise pieces get more readership and impact — length is a privilege, and every section must earn its pages by advancing the argument about the field. Brief reports have their own limit (1,000–1,500 words) (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
【Opening arc】frame → why-now → claim+spine → conclusions+agenda → roadmap? Y/N
【Bottom line early】claim stated up front? Y/N
【Accessibility】intuition-first; jargon controlled; another-area psychologist can follow? Y/N
【Signposting】architecture mirrors spine; periodic cues? Y/N
【Synthesis prose】papers/areas in dialogue, not listed? Y/N
【Provocation】reframe explicit and evidence-backed (not a hot take)? Y/N
【Forward agenda】close names concrete open questions / call to action? Y/N
【Abstract】≤ 200 words, perspective-style? Y/N
【Style】APA references/stats; concise? Y/N
【Next step】→ ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility → ppsych-editor-strategy
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin perspectives-on-psychological-science-skillsGuides prose drafting for Annual Review of Psychology reviews, shaping authoritative-yet-accessible voice for a broad psych readership.
Polishes Psychological Review manuscripts to APA house style and theory-paper register with mechanism-first prose and model vocabulary.
Polishes PDR (Population and Development Review) manuscripts with lucid, essayistic prose, APA references, and length norms for a broad demography-development audience. Tightens prose and format without inventing content.