Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
Without skill50%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Declines to design primary empirical field research
Includes tensions or conflicts as a coding matrix column
Includes construct definitions as a coding matrix column
and 12 more in the full report
10 fixed11 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+45 pp
Tokens
+14%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-31%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 10
Prompt
I have collected 15 primary sample correlation matrices and sample sizes from existing empirical papers on team psychological safety. Please execute a random-effects meta-analytic regression in R or Python to re-calculate the pooled effect size and adjust for sample bias.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Declines to perform statistical re-estimation on primary dataset
Missed
Passed
Explains that literature synthesis appraises published work rather than re-running estimations
Missed
Passed
case-04 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md83 linessingle file
Literature Synthesis Methodology (amann-literature-synthesis)
When to trigger
The proposal was invited and it is time to read the field thoroughly and transparently
Reading feels unsystematic; you fear missing streams a referee could name
You have many papers but no way to code, compare, or reconcile them
You must decide whether this review is narrative, systematic, or bibliometric in method
At Annals you synthesize — you do not run primary research
The folder name says "data analysis," but an Annals review reports no data of its own. Your "analysis" is the systematic appraisal and integration of a literature. The credibility of the whole review rests on the reader's belief that you read everything that matters and coded it consistently. Build coverage as a transparent process, not from memory.
Choose the integration method first
Method
What it does
Best when
Narrative / integrative review
reads, interprets, and reorganizes the literature into a new framework
the contribution is conceptual integration (Annals' core mode)
Systematic review
a pre-specified, reproducible search-and-screen protocol; transparent inclusion
the field is large and you must prove comprehensive, unbiased coverage
Bibliometric / meta-analytic
co-citation, co-word, or quantitative effect-size synthesis
the contribution is structural (intellectual map) or a cumulative magnitude estimate
Most Annals reviews are integrative narrative with a systematic backbone: a transparent search establishes coverage, and the narrative does the reorganizing. Bibliometrics can support the framework but rarely replaces the interpretive contribution.
Building coverage to saturation
Seed set. Start from the proposal's key references and the field's canonical pieces.
Transparent search. Search the major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO/Business Source, Google Scholar) by topic keywords; record terms, databases, dates, and counts so the "Review scope and process" claims are auditable.
Forward + backward snowball. Backward: each paper's reference list. Forward: who cites the seeds. Iterate until new searches stop turning up unseen important work (saturation).
Inclusion / exclusion logic, stated. Define what is in and out (time window, journal tier, theoretical vs. empirical, allied fields) and apply it consistently — referees ask "why did you omit X?"
Working papers + adjacent literatures. A current review must reach recent work and the bordering fields (organizational psychology, sociology) the literature draws on, or it reads stale or siloed.
Saturation log. Record when each search stopped yielding new must-cite work — this is your evidence of comprehensiveness for amann-evidence-standards and the referees.
From reading to synthesis (a coding matrix, not a summary)
Summarizing restates each paper; synthesizing makes papers talk to each other. Code the corpus as you read:
Column
What to capture
Study
author–year; the contribution you cite it for
Construct / question
exactly what it theorizes or measures (so incommensurable work is not pooled)