Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amann-organizing-framework
Use when building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
and 30 more in the full report
19 fixed2 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 19 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our team has drafted a 500-word paragraph trying to explain our review's contribution on workplace burnout. For our Annals submission framework blueprint, condense our core shift in perspective down to the required concise thesis statement.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response includes a single-sentence thesis statement in quotes under 【New way of seeing the field】. | Missed | Passed |
| The response uses bracketed tags such as 【Spine type】 for header fields. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Annals is "reviews with an attitude": it does not reward accurate summary, it rewards theory advancement through synthesis. The acceptance bar is whether the review imposes an organizing logic the field did not have — a typology, a process model, an integrating construct, a reconciliation of rival camps — that makes scattered work legible and generates a research agenda. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. This is what separates Annals from a descriptive review and from its sibling AMR, where new theory stands alone rather than emerging from a literature. Choose the spine deliberately:
| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Typology / taxonomy | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism, form, or approach | the field is fragmented into incommensurable camps |
| Process / stage model | a temporal or causal sequence (how a phenomenon unfolds) | the literature studies pieces of one process in isolation |
| Integrating construct | a higher-order concept that subsumes scattered variables | many parallel constructs are really facets of one thing |
| Dialectic / reconciliation | thesis–antithesis–synthesis across rival positions | a live debate has hardened into camps that talk past each other |
| Multi-level architecture | individual ↔ team ↔ organization ↔ field linkages | the literature is siloed by level of analysis |
Pick one primary spine; a second axis can be a within-section ordering, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.
Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (papers that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.
The framework is also what lets the review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory work is cited in clusters within its cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining studies. A review without a spine must either summarize everything (bloat) or omit silently (gaps). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.
test cases passed, vs 3 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.