Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/arpsych-topic-selection
Use when judging whether a psychology topic is mature, important, and synthesis-ready enough to warrant an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Tests topic fit; it does not pitch the topic to the Committee (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or gather the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 23 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
9 fixed12 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I am thinking about pitching a comprehensive review on how working memory training modifies frontoparietal network efficiency in healthy aging for the Annual Review of Psychology. Could you evaluate whether this topic is a good fit for ARPsych? Please structure your analysis by providing: 1) the key organizing question in quotation marks, 2) pass/fail checks with rationales for literature maturity, field-wide importance, and synthesis-readiness, 3) the scope breakdown including subfield, in/out boundaries, and target length, 4) an assessment of future-directions potential and open agenda items, 5) a sibling venue check explaining why it isn't better suited for journals like Psych Bulletin or ARClinPsych, and 6) the appropriate next step for submission.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Uses the exact bracketed header tag 【Organizing question】 for the organizing question. | Missed | Passed |
| Includes the exact tag 【Maturity / Importance / Synthesis-readiness】 with pass or fail ratings. | Missed | Passed |
| Outputs the next step line referencing arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
ARPsych commissions reviews that the whole field will read for a decade. A topic earns a slot only if it clears all three:
| Gate | Question | Fails when |
|---|---|---|
| Maturity | Is there enough accumulated, settled-enough work to synthesize? | The area is 3 papers old and moving weekly — premature; the review would date in a year |
| Importance | Will cognitive/social/developmental/clinical/neuro/I-O readers and adjacent fields care? | The topic matters only to one specialty's insiders |
| Synthesis-readiness | Is the literature fragmented in a way a framework could resolve? | The field is already tidy (a textbook chapter covers it) — nothing to add |
A topic that is mature + important but already well-synthesized does not need an ARPsych review; the value is the new organizing idea, not the recap.
ARPsych articles have a length assigned in the invitation letter (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — typically a focused subfield, not an entire domain. Calibrate scope so the review is:
arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance)A good test: can you name, in one phrase, the organizing question the review will answer (not the area it will cover)? "How do X and Y jointly shape Z?" beats "research on Z."
| If the topic is really… | The home is… | Tell |
|---|---|---|
| a stand-alone meta-analysis you want to run and submit | Psychological Bulletin | you have an effect to estimate, not a field to map |
| a clinical-psychology survey | Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (sister) | the audience is clinical scientists specifically |
| a short, provocative argument or commentary | Perspectives on Psychological Science | it is an opinion essay, not a survey of record |
| an original study with new data | a primary journal | you ran the study yourself |
test cases passed, vs 14 / 23 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.