Menu

Individual skill

arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance

0upvotes

Use when checking that an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review covers the literature even-handedly — across labs, paradigms, and rival theories — weighs evidence by credibility, and avoids self-promotion. Audits coverage and fairness; it does not build the search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework).

Annual-Review-of-Psychology-Skills/skills/arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,404
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Comprehensiveness & Balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance)

## When to trigger

- The framework is set but coverage may be lopsided toward one camp or method
- The author's own work is cited far more than its share of the field
- Contested effects are presented as settled (or vice versa) without weighing evidence
- A rival theory or a contradicting literature is under-represented or dismissed in a line

## Why balance is editorial currency at ARPsych

ARPsych authors are chosen partly for the standing to be **even-handed**, and the Committee assesses delivered reviews for **accuracy, rigor, and balance** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). A review of record cannot read as advocacy for the author's lab or favored theory. The job here is to audit the draft against four failure modes specific to high-stakes psychology reviews.

### 1. Coverage balance (across labs and paradigms)
Back to top