Use when judging whether a management/organization literature is an Academy of Management Annals (Annals)-scale review topic — mature, important, fragmented, and integrable into a new framework — rather than a narrow review. Decides fit and frames the review's animating problem; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing).
SkillScore96Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 23 without it.
Without skill52%
With skill96%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Delivers a verdict of Annals-shaped
Specifies amann-proposal-framing as the next step
Must recommend amann-proposal-framing as the next step
and 17 more in the full report
11 fixed11 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+43 pp
Tokens
+13%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-37%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 11
Prompt
I am planning a review paper on the literature surrounding remote work productivity and employee well-being over the past fifteen years. The field has dozens of competing models, conflicting empirical results, and isolated research streams across organizational behavior and sociology. I need you to evaluate whether this body of research fits Academy of Management Annals or if I should target a different journal like AMR, AMJ, or a field-specific outlet. Please run an assessment across the standard literature tests, define the core animating problem in the field, state the integrative payoff and forward-looking agenda, outline 3–6 essential research streams to cover, and give a venue verdict along with the appropriate next step.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Must format response using bracketed headers including 【Literature】, 【Five tests】, 【Animating problem】, 【Integrative payoff】, 【Why now】, 【Agenda】, 【Coverage skeleton】, 【Verdict】, and 【Next skill】
Missed
Passed
Must evaluate all five fit tests explicitly: maturity, importance, fragmentation, integrability, and tractable scope
Missed
Passed
Must specify amann-proposal-framing as the next workflow step
Missed
Passed
case-01 · 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.md72 linessingle file
Topic Selection for an Annals Review (amann-topic-selection)
When to trigger
You have a candidate literature and need to know whether it is "Annals-shaped"
A topic feels either too narrow (a single-construct review) or too sprawling (a whole discipline)
You are deciding between Annals and a sibling outlet — AMR, AMJ, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, or an Annual Review
The domain is young/fast-moving and you suspect it is not yet mature enough to review for Annals
The five Annals-fit tests
A literature belongs in Annals when it passes all five. Fail one and route accordingly.
Maturity. There is a body of research — multiple research streams, accumulated findings, recognizable debates — not a handful of recent studies. A domain still being born produces a premature review that dates within a year. (Fails → too young; wait, or place a focused piece elsewhere.)
Importance / breadth of interest. The questions matter to management and organization scholars broadly, and to allied audiences (organizational psychology, sociology of organizations), not only to a dozen specialists. Annals reaches across the field. (Fails → too niche; a field journal's review section fits better.)
Fragmentation / need for integration. The literature is scattered, siloed, contradictory, or conceptually muddled — rival constructs, parallel streams that never speak to each other, conflicting evidence. The review's value is the integration, not the inventory. (Fails → already well-synthesized; nothing to add.)
Integrability. You can see a plausible new organizing logic that would make the fragments cohere — a framework, a typology, a process model, a reconciliation. If you cannot imagine the spine, you have a topic, not an Annals review. (Fails → keep reading, or it is not yet an Annals piece.)
Tractable scope. One author/team can read and weigh the whole relevant literature in a single ~50-page review (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Annals reviews are long but bounded. (Fails → carve a coherent sub-domain.)
revisit in 2–3 years; place a focused piece elsewhere
Mature but narrow / specialist
Wrong venue
field-journal review section, or Journal of Management
Mature, important, but enormous (whole discipline)
Rescope
pick a coherent axis; → amann-organizing-framework to test the cut
You have new theory, not a review
Wrong venue
Academy of Management Review (AMR)
You have new data / hypothesis tests
Wrong venue
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ)
Framing the animating problem
An Annals review is organized by a problem with the field, not a topic label. Before proposing, write one sentence of each:
The state-of-knowledge problem: "This literature has accumulated a lot, but it is fragmented/contradictory/conceptually confused in this specific way."
The integrative payoff: the new way of seeing the field your review will deliver (the seed of the framework).
The agenda: what becomes researchable after the review that was not before — Annals expects a forward-looking agenda, not a closing summary.
The "attitude": where you will take a critical, potentially provocative position grounded in the evidence (the Annals house signature), not neutral description.
Use when judging whether a sociology literature is an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc)-scale review topic — mature, broadly important, and genuinely in need of an authoritative cross-subfield synthesis — and framing the review's animating question. Decides fit; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or pitch the Committee (arsoc-proposal-and-commissioning).