Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amann-tables-figures
Use when building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an Annals review reports no new data of its own).
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
and 4 more in the full report
5 fixed11 passed either way5 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I am preparing a review article on corporate governance and firm innovation. In Exhibit 3, I want to present my own fresh OLS and panel fixed-effects regression models showing how board diversity impacts R&D spending across 500 firms over 10 years, alongside summary rows of existing literature. How should I structure this exhibit?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response advises against including original empirical regression estimates in a review article exhibit. | Missed | Passed |
| The response recommends limiting review exhibits to cross-study literature synthesis. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Annals exhibits summarize and reorganize across the literature; they never present the author's own estimation. The workhorses:
| Exhibit | Purpose | Design notes |
|---|---|---|
| Framework figure | render the organizing spine — typology grid, process model, multi-level architecture | this is usually the review's signature exhibit; it should be restate-able from memory and carry the "new way of seeing the field" |
| Who-studied-what synthesis table | one row per study (or per stream): construct, theory base, method/context, finding, your appraisal | rows ordered by the framework's cells, not chronology; columns let the reader compare comparable work |
| Search / coverage exhibit | a PRISMA-style flow, a search-terms table, or a publications-over-time chart | documents the systematic process from amann-literature-synthesis and pre-empts "why did you omit X?" |
| Agenda / gap matrix | the framework's empty cells laid out as the future-research agenda | turns the generativity of the framework into a concrete, visible roadmap |
amann-literature-synthesis).amann-evidence-standards).If you assemble effect sizes into a quantitative synthesis (forest plot, meta-regression) or a co-citation map, you are doing meta-analysis or bibliometrics, with all their assumptions — comparable constructs, independence, publication-bias diagnostics, weighting. Do this only where the literature genuinely supports it; a spurious pooled magnitude or an over-interpreted co-citation cluster is less honest than a qualitative synthesis table. Annals readers include the methodologists who would catch invalid pooling.
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.