amann-evidence-standards
Use when appraising the cumulative evidence and ensuring balance in an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly. Audits evidence quality and fairness; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or build exhibits (amann-tables-figures).
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amann-evidence-standards --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# Evidence Standards — Appraisal & Balance (amann-evidence-standards) ## When to trigger - The framework is set and you are filling cells with the literature - The field has rival schools, a live controversy, or conflicting empirical results - You must decide whether to cite *everything* or curate, and how to weigh disagreeing studies - You are a contributor to this literature and worry the review tilts toward your own work ## At Annals you are the field's reviewer-of-record An Annals review carries no estimates of its own — but it is not therefore neutral. The "attitude" is **disciplined critical appraisal**: you judge how good the cumulative evidence is, reconcile conflicts by credibility, and state where the field's confidence is and is not warranted. This is the review-craft replacement for primary-research robustness checks: you are appraising *other people's* designs, not defending your own. ## Completeness vs. selectivity: the Annals contract A review must be **comprehensive in coverage** yet **selective in emphasis** — long (~50 pages) but not an inventory. Resolve the tension by **tiering** the corpus: | Tier | Treatment | |------|-----------| | **Foundational / field-defi
- When to trigger
- At Annals you are the field's reviewer-of-record
- Completeness vs. selectivity: the Annals contract
- Weighing conflicting evidence (not vote-counting)
- When appraisal needs an actual number (execution bridge)
- Fairness across schools and the self-citation trap
- Checklist
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
What does the amann-evidence-standards skill do?
Use when appraising the cumulative evidence and ensuring balance in an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly. Audits evidence quality and fairness; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or build exhibits (amann-tables-figures).
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amann-evidence-standards --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.