Individual skill
ppsych-organizing-framework
Use when imposing an analytical or conceptual structure on a body of psychology research for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) integrative review or theoretical statement — the unifying argument or "spine" that turns a reading list into a claim about the field. Designs the framework; it does not gather the literature (ppsych-literature-synthesis) or audit balance (ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).
Perspectives-on-Psychological-Science-Skills/skills/ppsych-organizing-framework/SKILL.md
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)
- 1,405
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- research Derived category
- security Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 6,253 bytes
Read excerpt
# Organizing Framework — the Argument's Spine (ppsych-organizing-framework)
## When to trigger
- The evidence matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of papers
- Sections are named after topics ("Behavioral studies", "Neuro work") rather than ideas
- A reader could not predict what comes next or why papers are grouped as they are
- You cannot state in one sentence the *argument or unifying claim* the piece makes about the field
## Why the spine is the whole game at PoPS
The most-cited reason integrative reviews fail is that they are **annotated bibliographies** — paper-after-paper summaries with no organizing idea. A great PoPS piece **imposes a structure the field did not have**: a taxonomy, a unifying theory, a sequence of questions, or a reframing that makes scattered cross-area work legible and *provocative*. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. PoPS's breadth mandate raises the bar: the spine must be graspable by a psychologist from a *different* area on one read, and it should **reframe**, not merely organize. Choose it deliberately:
| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |