Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amr-literature-positioning
Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 10 of 22 without it.
and 20 more in the full report
12 fixed7 passed either way0 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
In the entrepreneurship literature, the construct of 'effectuation' is treated as a single unified construct, causing contradictory empirical results. My paper splits effectuation into two distinct constructs: goal-flexible action and resource-driven discovery, resolving the standing debate. Format my positioning breakdown with standard tags.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response classifies the positioning move as reconceptualize. | Missed | Passed |
| The response includes the tag 【Extend】. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
AMR is a journal of conversations. Every accepted paper enters a specific theoretical conversation and moves it. The literature section is not a catalog of who-did-what — it is the set-up of the tension your theory will resolve. Two questions govern everything:
As you characterize the conversation, define the constructs you build on or revise. Suddaby's AMR "Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization" (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419) is the field standard: each construct needs a precise definition, scope conditions, and clear semantic relationships to neighbors. Positioning that leaves core constructs fuzzy invites the "this is a relabel" objection.
| Move | What you do |
|---|---|
| Add a missing construct | Existing theory lacks a concept needed to explain the phenomenon; you introduce and define it |
| Re-specify a relationship | A relationship treated as direct is really mediated / moderated / recursive |
| Bound a theory | You theorize the conditions under which the existing theory holds vs. fails |
| Bridge two conversations | You connect two streams that have ignored each other, generating new propositions |
| Reconceptualize a construct | You split, merge, or redefine a construct, dissolving a standing debate |
| Shift the level | A construct theorized at one level (individual) is re-theorized at another (collective) with new dynamics |
test cases passed, vs 10 / 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.