Agent skill · Code Review & Quality

arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility

Use when documenting the literature search and making any embedded meta-analysis reproducible for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Covers search transparency, meta-analytic rigor, and open materials; it does not run the narrative search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design exhibits (arpsych-tables-figures).

brycew6m878★ · +32/wk · 1 repos on radarProfile →
claude-codeMIT
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility --agent claude-code

Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.

Facts
Files in the skill folder: 1
SKILL.md size: 5 KB
Bundled scripts: none
Path: Annual-Review-of-Psychology-Skills/skills/arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility/SKILL.md
Open the folder on GitHub →
Where it comes from
Stars: 909 · +31 this week
Language: Stata
Read our review of the source →

Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.

From the SKILL.md

# Transparency & Reproducibility (arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility) ## When to trigger - The review documents a systematic search and you must report it reproducibly - The review embeds a **meta-analysis** or any new quantitative synthesis - You are deciding what to deposit (search log, coding sheet, effect-size data, code) - A reader or the Committee should be able to verify how the literature was selected ## A review reports no new data — so transparency bites elsewhere A pure narrative review has no dataset of its own, so the transparency obligation does **not** look like a primary-paper replication package. It bites on two things: 1. **How the literature was found and selected** — the search protocol from `arpsych-literature-synthesis`, written up so a reader could reproduce the coverage. 2. **Any quantitative synthesis the review itself contributes** — if you compute pooled effects, that *is* original analysis, and it must be reproducible (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). Post-replication-crisis, ARPsych readers expect both, and a review that asserts "the literature shows…" with no documented basis reads as less authoritative. ## If the review is narrative (no meta-analysis) - Repo

What's inside
Steps it walks through
  1. When to trigger
  2. A review reports no new data — so transparency bites elsewhere
  3. If the review is narrative (no meta-analysis)
  4. If the review embeds a meta-analysis
  5. Required declarations (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)
  6. Checklist
  7. Anti-patterns
  8. Output format
More from Awesome-Journal-Skills
All skills →
About this skill
What does the arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility skill do?

Use when documenting the literature search and making any embedded meta-analysis reproducible for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Covers search transparency, meta-analytic rigor, and open materials; it does not run the narrative search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design exhibits (arpsych-tables-figures).

How do I install it?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility --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.

Keep going