agentsclimarketplace

Arpsych literature synthesis

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Annual-Review-of-Psychology-Skills/skills/arpsych-literature-synthesis

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arpsych-literature-synthesis

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when systematically gathering, reading, and structuring the literature for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so coverage is comprehensive and current. Builds the evidence base; it does not design the analytical spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or judge balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

SKILL.md

4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Literature Synthesis — Reading the Whole Field (arpsych-literature-synthesis)

When to trigger

  • An invitation is in hand and the reading must start in earnest
  • The user has "read a lot" but has no system for tracking what is covered
  • Coverage gaps are likely (one paradigm, one lab, or one decade dominates the notes)
  • An embedded meta-analysis is planned and the search must be documentable

Coverage is the price of admission, not the contribution

ARPsych readers trust a review to be comprehensive within its frame and current to the frontier. A reviewer caught missing a major line of work loses authority instantly. But coverage is the floor: the contribution is the framework you impose later (arpsych-organizing-framework). This skill builds an evidence base broad and well-recorded enough that (a) nothing important is missed and (b) you can later be selective in prose without being incomplete in coverage.

A systematic, documentable search

Even a narrative review benefits from a near-systematic search you can describe:

  1. Seed set — the canonical and recent agenda-setting papers you already know.
  2. Forward + backward citation chasing — who cites the seeds; whom the seeds cite.
  3. Database sweep — PsycINFO/APA PsycNet, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar with explicit terms.
  4. Specialty + adjacent venues — the relevant primary journals AND adjacent fields (neuro, economics, linguistics) the topic touches.
  5. Stopping rule — saturation: new searches surface only papers already in the matrix.
  6. Record the protocol — terms, databases, dates, inclusion/exclusion — even for a narrative review; mandatory if you report a meta-analysis (→ arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Document the search as you go, not from memory afterward. ARPsych's transparency expectations and any meta-analytic component both depend on a search log you can reproduce (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).

The evidence matrix (one row per study/finding)

Build a structured table — not a pile of PDFs. Useful columns:

ColumnWhy
Construct / questionlets you later sort papers into framework cells
Population / paradigmsurfaces over-reliance on one method or sample (WEIRD bias)
Design + strengthfeeds credibility weighting in arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance
Effect / finding (+ direction, size if available)enables quantitative synthesis
Replication statusflags shaky vs. robust effects (post-replication-crisis hygiene)
Lab / campexposes citation concentration and balance risks

The matrix is the bridge: its rows become framework cells, its columns become balance and credibility checks.

Checklist

  • Seed set, citation chasing, database sweep, and adjacent venues all run
  • Search terms, databases, and dates recorded (protocol, not memory)
  • Saturation reached (new searches return only known papers)
  • Evidence matrix built: one row per study/finding with the columns above
  • Replication status noted for contested effects
  • Lab/camp column reveals whether coverage concentrates on a few groups
  • Non-English / non-WEIRD and cross-disciplinary work checked for, not assumed away
  • Coverage is current to the frontier AND anchored to foundational work

Anti-patterns

  • Reading by familiarity (only your own subfield's journals) — guarantees coverage gaps
  • No search protocol — cannot satisfy ARPsych transparency or support a meta-analysis
  • A pile of summaries instead of a structured matrix — no path to a framework
  • Ignoring replication status, so debunked effects are reviewed as established
  • Stopping when tired rather than at saturation
  • Treating coverage as the contribution (it is the floor, not the spine)

Output format

【Search protocol】seeds + databases + terms + dates + stopping rule (recorded?)
【Coverage】subfields/paradigms/adjacent fields swept; saturation reached? Y/N
【Evidence matrix】#rows; columns include design, replication status, lab/camp? Y/N
【Gaps / concentration】where coverage thins or over-concentrates
【Meta-analysis planned?】Y/N → if Y, route to transparency skill
【Next step】→ arpsych-organizing-framework (turn the matrix into a spine)

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.