amann-workflow
GitHub作为Annals综述文章的流程路由器，根据当前阶段（选题、提案、文献综合等）推荐具体的amann-*子技能。不替代专业任务，而是引导用户完成从选题到投稿的完整工作流，确保文章具备整合性与批判性视角。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amann-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amann-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which amann-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
Annals Workflow Router (amann-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which amann- skill to use at the current stage* of a comprehensive, integrative review article aimed at the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) — the Academy of Management's review-of-the-field journal, published with Taylor & Francis. Annals does not publish original empirical research or stand-alone new theory; it publishes authoritative, theory-advancing reviews that synthesize a management/organization literature. Its mission is "up-to-date, in-depth and integrative reviews of research advances in management," and its house identity is "reviews with an attitude": a review must take a critical, integrative stance and set an agenda, not merely catalog papers (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend." It is judge whether a literature is Annals-scale → write the ≤5-page proposal (the gate) → if invited, read the whole literature → impose a novel organizing framework → appraise the evidence even-handedly → build synthesis exhibits → land the Annals voice → develop the full review through the editor-only process. The single binding constraint at every step is the same: does this review create a new way of seeing the field? A review that summarizes accurately but reorganizes nothing is the canonical Annals reject.
Default assumption: unless told otherwise, treat the target as Annals and the artefact as a comprehensive review, not a primary paper. Tells that you are at Annals and not a sibling: the work synthesizes other people's research rather than reporting your own; the first deliverable is a short proposal under a twice-yearly deadline, not a full draft; there is no hypothesis test or dataset of your own — you appraise the studies you cover; the contribution is an integrative map and agenda for a field. If the user has original theory, route to AMR; original data, route to AMJ — say so.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a review article
- A review draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs an organizing spine
- Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, evidence appraisal, and the proposal
- An Annals proposal decision or a full-review referee letter arrived and the user must switch modes
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the literature is mature/important/fragmented enough for Annals | amann-topic-selection |
| Need to write the ≤5-page proposal that gates the whole process | amann-proposal-framing |
| Reading is unsystematic; coverage gaps a referee could name are likely | amann-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | amann-organizing-framework |
| Appraisal of cumulative evidence / balance across schools feels off | amann-evidence-standards |
| Need who-found-what tables or a framework diagram | amann-tables-figures |
| Prose is descriptive/jargon-laden; the "attitude" and agenda are missing | amann-writing-style |
| Negotiating scope with the editor or anticipating review-article referees | amann-editor-strategy |
| Ready to submit a proposal or invited full review via Manuscript Central | amann-submission |
| Need to understand the two-step proposal→invited-review choreography and timelines | amann-review-process |
| Received a proposal decision or full-review referee letter | amann-revision |
Default order
amann-topic-selection— confirm the literature is Annals-scale (mature, important, fragmented, integrable)amann-proposal-framing— write the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal (the gate)amann-literature-synthesis— once invited, read the field systematically to saturationamann-organizing-framework— impose the novel integrative spine (the acceptance bar)amann-evidence-standards— appraise cumulative evidence and balance across schoolsamann-tables-figures— synthesis tables and the signature framework figureamann-writing-style— the authoritative, agenda-setting "attitude" voice (intro + abstract last)amann-editor-strategy— scope negotiation and review-article referee expectationsamann-submission— Manuscript Central preflight (proposal or invited full review)amann-review-process— the proposal→invited-review process and twice-yearly cadenceamann-revision— after the proposal decision or full-review letter
amann-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the framework and evidence appraisal settle. The proposal comes early and is the gate — at Annals you cannot submit a full review cold, soamann-proposal-framingprecedes the heavy reading.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a full review cold — Annals is proposal-first; an uninvited full manuscript is out of process (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
- Treating the review as an annotated bibliography with no integrative framework — the named Annals reject
- Producing a descriptive map with no "attitude": no critique, no reconciliation, no agenda
- Centering the review on the author's own program (self-promotion; review-article referees punish this)
- Confusing Annals with AMR (original theory) or AMJ (empirical) — Annals is the review-of-the-field
- Missing the April 1 / October 1 proposal windows because the team treated intake as rolling
Routing by review archetype
A "review" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| field-defining integrative review (broad domain) | scope is enormous; needs a new organizing architecture | amann-organizing-framework |
| construct-clarification / reconciliation review | rival definitions and incommensurable measures; needs an integrating logic | amann-organizing-framework |
| cumulative-evidence stock-take (what do we know?) | even-handed appraisal of conflicting findings | amann-evidence-standards |
| emerging / fast-moving domain review | is it mature enough for Annals yet? | amann-topic-selection |
| systematic / bibliometric review | search transparency + turning the corpus into an argument | amann-literature-synthesis |
Minimal decision snippet
if proposal_decision_or_referee_letter: -> amann-revision
elif understanding_two_step_process: -> amann-review-process
elif ready_to_submit: -> amann-submission
elif scope_or_referee_anticipation: -> amann-editor-strategy
elif prose_descriptive_no_attitude: -> amann-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_framework_figure: -> amann-tables-figures
elif evidence_appraisal_or_balance_off: -> amann-evidence-standards
elif reads_like_a_list: -> amann-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic: -> amann-literature-synthesis
elif no_proposal_yet: -> amann-proposal-framing
else: -> amann-topic-selection
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:13
