Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amann-proposal-framing
Use when writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
10 fixed11 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
What online submission system does Academy of Management Annals use for proposal intake, and what extra author document might editors request?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Names Manuscript Central as the portal. | Missed | Passed |
| Notes that a current CV may be requested for editor review. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
amann-topic-selection and you are ready to approach AnnalsAnnals uses a two-step, proposal-first process. You do not submit a full review cold; you submit a short proposal, and only an accepted proposal is invited to develop into a full article.
amann-review-process.)https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aomannals. A current CV may be requested for the editors' eyes only — confirm at submission time (待核实).The ≤5-page proposal is the single most consequential document in the Annals lifecycle: it is the gate. A strong proposal earns an invitation before you sink months into reading and drafting; a weak one ends the project regardless of how good the eventual review would have been. Treat it as a high-stakes argument, not an outline.
| Heading | What it must do | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Focus of the review | Name the literature and the problem with the field (from amann-topic-selection), not just the topic | A topic label ("a review of X") with no problem |
| Related reviews | Show command of prior reviews and stake the delta — what yours does that none did | Claiming "no review exists" instead of differentiating from the ones that do |
| Review scope and process | State boundaries, inclusion/exclusion logic, databases, and the synthesis method (narrative / systematic / bibliometric) | Vague "we will read the literature" with no transparent process |
| New insights | Lead with the integrative framework and the agenda — the new way of seeing the field, with attitude | A promise of "comprehensive coverage" and no new organizing idea |
The center of gravity is New insights: Associate Editors are deciding whether this review will reorganize the field, not whether it will summarize it. A proposal that nails coverage but offers no framework is the most common proposal-stage reject.
test cases passed, vs 12 / 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.