Use when building the actual theory for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — turning a positioned puzzle into defined constructs, explicit relationships, propositions, and boundary conditions. Constructs the theory; it does NOT stress-test the argument's logic (that is amr-data-analysis) or design any data collection (AMR has none).
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 22 without it.
Without skill64%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Specifies the theoretical level for each construct.
Assigns an explicit level of theory to the construct.
Recommends amr-methods as the next step in the pipeline.
and 9 more in the full report
8 fixed12 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+27 pp
Tokens
+28%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-8%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 8
Prompt
I am working on a conceptual paper for Academy of Management Review about how sudden chief executive turnover impacts middle management psychological safety and strategic initiative-taking. The core puzzle is established, but I need to build out the formal theoretical architecture. Please structure this into a rigorous conceptual breakdown that includes defined theoretical constructs (with scope, distinctions, and levels), underlying assumptions, specified relationships and mechanisms, numbered theoretical propositions with preceding logic, boundary conditions, and recommended next steps.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Uses the required header blocks 【Constructs】, 【Assumptions】, 【Relationships】, 【Propositions】, 【Boundary conditions】, and 【Next step】.
Missed
Passed
Includes explicit domain details specifying included instances and excluded instances for each construct.
Passed
Passed
Directs the next step to amr-methods rather than an empirical study design.
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.md94 linessingle file
Theory Development: Constructs, Relationships, Propositions (amr-theory-development)
When to trigger
The puzzle and conversation are set; now you must build the theory
You have propositions but no defined constructs underneath them
Your relationships are asserted, not derived
You have not stated boundary conditions or assumptions
The build order
AMR theory is assembled in a disciplined sequence. Skipping a step is the most common
reason a draft reads as "assertions, not theory."
Define the constructs. For each new or re-specified construct: a precise conceptual
definition, its domain (what it includes and, crucially, excludes), scope conditions,
and how it differs from neighboring constructs. This is the construct-clarity standard
from Suddaby's AMR editorial (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419): definition, scope
conditions, semantic relationships, coherence. A construct that overlaps an existing one
without distinction will be challenged as a relabel.
State the assumptions. What must be true about actors, the setting, and the world
for the theory to operate? Make them explicit; hidden assumptions are where reviewers
attack.
Specify the relationships. Name the form of each link: causal, recursive,
moderating, mediating, constitutive. "X relates to Y" is not a relationship — specify
direction, shape, and why.
Articulate the mechanism. The why. The mechanism is the engine that makes the
relationship hold. A proposition without a mechanism is a guess. Whetten's AMR editorial
(1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371) is explicit that the Why is what makes theory
theory; the What and How without the Why is description. (Develop the mechanism logic with
amr-data-analysis.)
Write the propositions. Each proposition is a falsifiable theoretical claim that
follows from the constructs + mechanism. Number them (P1, P2...). Each must be preceded
by the argument that earns it.
Set boundary conditions. State when the theory holds and when it does not — the
contextual, temporal, and level limits. Boundary conditions are a contribution, not a
disclaimer.
Use when building the theoretical engine for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — mechanisms, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis.