Use when getting a review topic in front of the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee or shaping an accepted invitation — the commissioned/invited intake route, how to suggest a topic, and what a Committee-ready pitch contains. Frames the commission; it does not gather the literature (arecon-literature-synthesis) or run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission).
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 22 without it.
Without skill32%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Contains the bracketed tag 【Route】.
Contains the bracketed tag 【Why now】.
Output uses the bracketed tag 【Why now】.
and 27 more in the full report
14 fixed6 passed either way1 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+59 pp
Tokens
+28%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-24%
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 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
What is the immediate next step specified in the topic framing process right after completing a pitch proposal for Annual Review of Economics?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Specifies proceeding to systematic literature synthesis after securing the editorial invitation.
Missed
Passed
States that heavy reading should begin after establishing the scope.
Missed
Passed
case-16 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
The topic passed arecon-topic-selection and you want it considered for an ARE volume
You received an invitation from the Editorial Committee and need to lock the angle before reading
You are unsure how ARE intake works — it is not a portal you submit a finished paper to
You want to maximize the chance the Committee commissions you for this topic
How ARE intake actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
This is the single most important difference from a normal journal — get it right or you waste months. ARE is commissioning-driven:
The Editorial Committee invites articles. The Committee identifies salient topics and solicits reviews from qualified authors, selecting on scholarly reputation, academic record, and publication history (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Unsolicited finished manuscripts are not accepted. You do not write the full review and submit it cold the way you would to JEL or a field journal (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The leverage point is getting your topic and your name onto the Committee's radar, not polishing a finished draft no one asked for.
Suggesting a topic is the controllable move. Authors and Committee members can propose topics; a member may propose another member or an outside expert. Proposed topics are evaluated with the same rigor as any commissioned article and go through review after submission (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your realistic path is a sharp, short pitch — to the Committee, an editor you know, or via the journal's suggestion channel — that demonstrates the topic is ARE-shaped and that you are the right author.
After an invitation, scope is negotiated with the editor/Committee before you draft (see arecon-editor-strategy).
Because you cannot manufacture an invitation, the closest controllable substitute is a one-to-two-page topic pitch that reads like the Committee's own reasoning: here is a field that has matured, here is why an adjacent economist needs a map of it now, here is the spine I would impose, and here is why I can write it fairly. Put your name in front of the Committee as the person who could write that review.
Anatomy of a Committee-ready topic pitch
Element
What it must do
Length guide
The field & animating question
State the literature and the question about it (from arecon-topic-selection)
~1 paragraph
Why a synthesis is needed now
New evidence / method shift / policy salience; the adjacent-economist payoff
~1 paragraph
The organizing spine
The taxonomy or analytical structure you would impose — not a chapter list
~2–3 paragraphs
Coverage signal
The main research lines and key references you would weigh (breadth evidence)
a curated list
Provisional conclusions
Your read of what the field has settled and the open questions (the payoff)
~1 paragraph
Your standing & balance
Why you can review this fairly, and how you will handle your own work even-handedly
~2 sentences
Checklist
You understand ARE is invited — you are pitching a topic, not submitting a finished paper
The pitch states the contents, why adjacent economists will care, and the main references you would weigh
It leads with an organizing spine, not a table of contents
It demonstrates command of the literature (the reference signal shows breadth)
It names the provisional conclusions and open questions (so the Committee sees a payoff)
It addresses balance, especially if you are a contributor to the field
You have identified the right channel (suggestion form / known editor / Committee contact) and confirmed it on the official page (volatile)
Use when getting a topic in front of the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editorial Committee, suggesting a topic/author, or shaping an accepted invitation into an agreed scope. Handles the commissioning relationship; it does not test topic maturity (arpsych-topic-selection) or read the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).