amann-literature-synthesis — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited amann-literature-synthesis (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
The folder name says "data analysis," but an Annals review reports no data of its own. Your "analysis" is the systematic appraisal and integration of a literature. The credibility of the whole review rests on the reader's belief that you read everything that matters and coded it consistently. Build coverage as a transparent process, not from memory.
| Method | What it does | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative / integrative review | reads, interprets, and reorganizes the literature into a new framework | the contribution is conceptual integration (Annals' core mode) |
| Systematic review | a pre-specified, reproducible search-and-screen protocol; transparent inclusion | the field is large and you must prove comprehensive, unbiased coverage |
| Bibliometric / meta-analytic | co-citation, co-word, or quantitative effect-size synthesis | the contribution is structural (intellectual map) or a cumulative magnitude estimate |
Most Annals reviews are integrative narrative with a systematic backbone: a transparent search establishes coverage, and the narrative does the reorganizing. Bibliometrics can support the framework but rarely replaces the interpretive contribution.
amann-evidence-standards and the referees.Summarizing restates each paper; synthesizing makes papers talk to each other. Code the corpus as you read:
| Column | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Study | author–year; the contribution you cite it for |
| Construct / question | exactly what it theorizes or measures (so incommensurable work is not pooled) |
| Theory base | the lens it uses (so you can map streams and detect silos) |
| Method / context | design, sample, setting (so you can weight credibility) |
| Finding / claim | direction + magnitude or the conceptual move |
| Tension | which work it agrees/conflicts with, and why |
This matrix feeds the organizing framework, the synthesis tables, and the even-handed treatment of debates. You appraise the studies (you are the field's reviewer-of-record); you do not re-run or "correct" them.
【Method】narrative-integrative / systematic / bibliometric — and why
【Seed set】<canonical + proposal references>
【Search record】terms / databases / dates / counts logged? Y/N
【Snowball】backward+forward iterated to saturation? Y/N
【Inclusion logic】stated and consistently applied? Y/N
【Frontier + adjacency】recent WPs + bordering fields included? Y/N
【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
【Coding matrix】construct/theory/method/finding/tension rows ready? Y/N
【Coverage risks】<any author/stream an omission referee could name>
【Next skill】→ amann-organizing-framework (impose the integrative spine on the matrix)~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.