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).
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/16/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 22 without it.
Without skill59%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response includes the label 【Situation】suggesting-topic.
The output contains the label 【Situation】invitation-in-hand.
The response specifies the situation label as suggesting-topic.
and 9 more in the full report
9 fixed11 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+32 pp
Tokens
+31%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/16/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 9
Prompt
We received a formal invitation from the Annual Review of Psychology Editorial Committee for a review on moral psychology. What situation label must be recorded in the standardized setup outline?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response specifies the situation label as invitation-in-hand.
Missed
Passed
case-11 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/16/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
The user has an ARPsych-worthy topic but no invitation yet
An invitation letter arrived and the scope/length/deadline need to be pinned down
The user wants to suggest a topic or an author to the Editorial Committee
A co-author lineup and division of labor must be settled before the heavy reading begins
How ARPsych commissioning actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
ARPsych is commissioning-first. The flow is the opposite of a normal journal:
The Editorial Committee (an Editor — Susan T. Fiske since 2000 — plus associate editors and rotating members appointed by the Annual Reviews board) plans each annual volume, deciding which topics the field needs covered (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
The Committee identifies and invites qualified authors based on scholarly reputation and publication record. Unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
You may suggest a topic (and yourself or others as author) for the Committee's consideration through the official channels, but suggestion ≠ acceptance — the Committee curates the volume (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
The invitation letter specifies the assigned length and the due date; treat both as binding (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
So "submitting to ARPsych" means earning an invitation, then delivering to spec. Plan accordingly: the time to influence the topic is before a draft exists.
Two situations, two playbooks
A) No invitation yet — suggesting a topic
Frame the topic as a gap in the volume's coverage, not "my work deserves a review." The Committee thinks in terms of what the field is missing.
Name the organizing question (from arpsych-topic-selection), why now (maturity), and why ARPsych's broad readership needs it.
Propose author(s) with the standing and balance to cover the area even-handedly — including, ideally, people not identified with one camp.
Use official suggestion channels; do not send a finished manuscript (it cannot be accepted cold).
B) Invitation in hand — locking the contract
Confirm assigned length and due date in writing; ARPsych asks authors to keep to the assigned length, which includes figures and tables (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Negotiate scope explicitly: what is in, what is out, where the boundary sits with neighboring commissioned reviews.
Agree the author order and contributions up front; a multi-author review needs one voice (see arpsych-writing-style).
Calendar the production milestones early (see arpsych-editor-strategy).
Checklist
Clear on which situation applies (suggesting vs. invited)
Organizing question and "why now / why ARPsych readers" are one paragraph each
If suggesting: framed as a coverage gap; author lineup is balanced, not partisan
If invited: assigned length and due date confirmed in writing
Use when managing scope, length, deadlines, and the production relationship with the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor and Annual Reviews production team. Handles the editorial/production process; it does not get the initial invitation (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or run the final file preflight (arpsych-submission).