ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
Use when appraising the credibility of the studies a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece synthesizes and calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing camps — including reform-minded but evidence-based critique. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (ppsych-organizing-framework) or run new analyses.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance --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.
# Comprehensiveness & Balance (ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance) ## When to trigger - The framework is set and you are filling cells with conflicting findings from different areas - You must decide whether "the field finds X" is actually supported, or only loosely - The topic has rival schools, a live controversy, or a replication/reform debate - You are a contributor to this literature and worry the piece tilts toward your own work or your camp's reform agenda ## Appraising evidence you did not produce A PoPS piece **runs no study of its own** (unless it is a meta-analysis with a superordinate message). You act as the field's **referee-of-record for cross-area readers**: judge how much weight each study can bear so the synthesis weighs evidence correctly. Make the appraisal explicit: - **Power & sample.** Is the cited effect from an adequately powered design, or a small-N study likely to be inflated? Underpowered originals support weaker claims. - **Replication status.** Has it replicated (direct or close)? A failed-to-replicate headline cannot anchor a "the field knows X" claim — flag it. - **Preregistration & flexibility.** Was the analysis preregistered, or could researcher
- When to trigger
- Appraising evidence you did not produce
- Weighing, not vote-counting
- Comprehensiveness vs. selectivity: the PoPS contract
- Reform-minded but evidence-based
- Fairness and the self-citation trap
- Checklist
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
What does the ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance skill do?
Use when appraising the credibility of the studies a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece synthesizes and calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing camps — including reform-minded but evidence-based critique. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (ppsych-organizing-framework) or run new analyses.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance --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.