Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/arecon-workflow
Use when deciding which arecon-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing an invited review article from topic through revision for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 22 without it.
and 13 more in the full report
16 fixed4 passed either way2 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.
My reading on an invited economics review has been informal and spotty, leaving potential citation gaps across key subfields. Which skill addresses systematic search and coverage?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommends `arecon-literature-synthesis`. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This is the router. It tells you which arecon- skill to use at the current stage* of an invited review article aimed at the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) — the Annual Reviews (nonprofit) survey series for economics, founded 2009, published as an annual volume with a high impact factor (检索于 2026-06；11.4 in 2024, ~5th of 617 econ journals；以官网为准). ARE does not publish original empirical research. It publishes authoritative, accessible review articles that synthesize a field for specialists and adjacent economists. So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is scope a synthesis-worthy field → secure the invitation → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → appraise the evidence fairly → land the ARE voice → clear the Annual Reviews production process → revise.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as ARE and the artefact as an invited review, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at ARE and not a sibling: the work reviews other people's results rather than reporting its own; unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted — the Editorial Committee commissions topics and authors (you can suggest a topic, but you cannot self-submit a finished paper the way you would to a journal) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); there is no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data (you appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an analytical map of a field, not a new estimate. If the user actually has original results, they want a primary-research journal (AER, QE, an AEJ), not ARE — say so.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the field is mature/important enough to review for ARE | arecon-topic-selection |
| Need to get the topic in front of the Editorial Committee / accept an invitation | arecon-proposal-framing |
| Reading is unsystematic; citation gaps likely | arecon-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | arecon-organizing-framework |
| Conflicting findings; credibility of primary studies needs weighing | arecon-evidence-standards |
| Coverage, balance, or self-promotion concerns | arecon-evidence-standards (balance lens) |
| Need who-found-what tables or a conceptual framework figure | arecon-tables-figures |
| Prose is dense/jargon-laden; a non-specialist economist can't follow | arecon-writing-style |
| Working with the Annual Reviews production editor / Committee on scope | arecon-editor-strategy |
| Ready to deliver the commissioned draft; need a preflight | arecon-submission |
| Want to understand the Committee review cycle / timeline | arecon-review-process |
| Received editor/referee feedback on the review | arecon-revision |
arecon-topic-selection — confirm the field is ARE-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)arecon-proposal-framing — get the topic to the Editorial Committee / shape the accepted invitationarecon-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematicallyarecon-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spinearecon-evidence-standards — appraise primary-study credibility; balance competing viewsarecon-tables-figures — summary tables and the conceptual figuretest cases passed, vs 4 / 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.