Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amj-workflow
Use when deciding which amj-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
and 20 more in the full report
16 fixed3 passed either way3 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
On our stage card: theory, mechanism, positioning, design, and data analysis are marked complete (`yes`), but `theoretical_contribution_explicit` is marked `no`. What is the exact module destination?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Identifies theoretical_contribution_explicit as the unresolved gate. | Passed | Passed |
| Routes the project to amj-contribution-framing. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which amj- skill to use right now* for your AMJ manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as AMJ — the premier empirical management journal published by the Academy of Management (AOM), founded in 1958 and published bimonthly (Feb/Apr/Jun/Aug/Oct/Dec). AMJ's stated mission is "to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice." It explicitly welcomes all empirical methods — qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed — and judges every manuscript on three criteria: a strong empirical contribution, a meaningful theoretical contribution, and practical relevance. The non-negotiable bar: a strong empirical study that also makes a clear theoretical contribution. Reviewers and the action editor will ask "what new theory do we learn?" as insistently as "is the method sound?" Both must pass.
Editorial team changes: Gary A. Ballinger (University of Virginia, McIntire) is the incoming Editor-in-Chief whose team began receiving submissions on 1 July 2025; verify the current masthead at journals.aom.org/journal/amj. Impact factor and acceptance rate fluctuate (2023 JCR IF ≈ 9.5) — treat any figure as approximate and confirm on the official page.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; not sure it is theory-driven or AMJ-fit | amj-topic-selection |
| Hypotheses are descriptive; no clear theoretical mechanism | amj-theory-development |
| Front end reads as gap-spotting; canonical theory not engaged | amj-literature-positioning |
| Design may not match the question (level, source, timing, causality) | amj-methods |
| Have data; unsure about measurement validity, CMB, endogeneity, models | amj-data-analysis |
| Results exist but the "so what for theory" is thin | amj-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures cluttered, off house style, or not self-explanatory | amj-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the argument | amj-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne preflight | amj-submission |
| Want to understand how AMJ review/decisions work before/after submit | amj-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response | amj-rebuttal |
amj-topic-selection — lock a theory-driven question with AMJ fitamj-theory-development — build the mechanism and derive hypotheses a prioriamj-literature-positioning — engage canonical theory; state the conversation you joinamj-methods — match design to the question (level, source, timing, causal logic)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.