Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amann-workflow
Use when deciding which amann-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
and 17 more in the full report
19 fixed3 passed either way0 still failing0 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.
In the standard sequence for an invited review manuscript, what specific step immediately follows systematic literature reading (`amann-literature-synthesis`) before evaluating evidence standards?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Identifies `amann-organizing-framework` as the immediate next step. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This is the router. It tells you which amann- skill to use at the current stage* of a comprehensive, integrative review article aimed at the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) — the Academy of Management's review-of-the-field journal, published with Taylor & Francis. Annals does not publish original empirical research or stand-alone new theory; it publishes authoritative, theory-advancing reviews that synthesize a management/organization literature. Its mission is "up-to-date, in-depth and integrative reviews of research advances in management," and its house identity is "reviews with an attitude": a review must take a critical, integrative stance and set an agenda, not merely catalog papers (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend." It is judge whether a literature is Annals-scale → write the ≤5-page proposal (the gate) → if invited, read the whole literature → impose a novel organizing framework → appraise the evidence even-handedly → build synthesis exhibits → land the Annals voice → develop the full review through the editor-only process. The single binding constraint at every step is the same: does this review create a new way of seeing the field? A review that summarizes accurately but reorganizes nothing is the canonical Annals reject.
Default assumption: unless told otherwise, treat the target as Annals and the artefact as a comprehensive review, not a primary paper. Tells that you are at Annals and not a sibling: the work synthesizes other people's research rather than reporting your own; the first deliverable is a short proposal under a twice-yearly deadline, not a full draft; there is no hypothesis test or dataset of your own — you appraise the studies you cover; the contribution is an integrative map and agenda for a field. If the user has original theory, route to AMR; original data, route to AMJ — say so.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the literature is mature/important/fragmented enough for Annals | amann-topic-selection |
| Need to write the ≤5-page proposal that gates the whole process | amann-proposal-framing |
| Reading is unsystematic; coverage gaps a referee could name are likely | amann-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | amann-organizing-framework |
| Appraisal of cumulative evidence / balance across schools feels off | amann-evidence-standards |
| Need who-found-what tables or a framework diagram | amann-tables-figures |
| Prose is descriptive/jargon-laden; the "attitude" and agenda are missing | amann-writing-style |
| Negotiating scope with the editor or anticipating review-article referees | amann-editor-strategy |
| Ready to submit a proposal or invited full review via Manuscript Central | amann-submission |
| Need to understand the two-step proposal→invited-review choreography and timelines | amann-review-process |
| Received a proposal decision or full-review referee letter | amann-revision |
amann-topic-selection — confirm the literature is Annals-scale (mature, important, fragmented, integrable)amann-proposal-framing — write the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal (the gate)amann-literature-synthesis — once invited, read the field systematically to saturationamann-organizing-framework — impose the novel integrative spine (the acceptance bar)amann-evidence-standards — appraise cumulative evidence and balance across schoolstest 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.