Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use before submitting to a venue this repository does not cover, one that arrived by email solicitation, or one whose indexing status matters for a tenure or degree requirement. Runs a source-by-source verification protocol — indexing, publisher, editorial board, fees, retraction history — and reports what each primary source says. It never labels a journal; it reports checks.

Use after a rejection, or when switching target journals, to turn a manuscript framed for one venue into one framed for another. Produces a concrete reframing diff — introduction arc, contribution claim, evidence to add or cut, house style, format — by reading both venues' own packs. Complements rt-journal-match, which picks the venue; this one does the rewrite plan.

Use to sequence a manuscript across venues — which cross-journal toolkit skill to invoke next, from picking a target journal through execution, submission-readiness, simulated review, rebuttal, and the replication package. Routes; it does not replace the per-journal depth packs or the specialized toolkit skills.

Use when results exist but the "so what for accounting" is thin for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — turning estimates or propositions into one sharp, defensible accounting contribution. Sharpens the claim; it does not position against the literature (revacc-literature-positioning) or polish the prose (revacc-writing-style).

Use when running and reporting the empirical analysis for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — standard-error clustering, executing the identification, validating accounting constructs, and the robustness battery referees expect, plus the data provenance trail. Executes and reports; it does not choose the identification strategy (revacc-methods) or frame the contribution (revacc-contribution-framing).

Use when the contribution relative to the accounting frontier and the sibling journals is fuzzy for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — joining the right disclosure/earnings/valuation conversation and stating the marginal contribution. Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-sentence claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build the mechanism (revacc-theory-development).

Use when research design and identification are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — choosing the setting, shock, and design that credibly identify an accounting effect, or fixing the primitives and solution concept of an analytical model. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation and robustness (revacc-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (revacc-contribution-framing).

Use when a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) revise-and-resubmit has arrived and you must plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — resolving the editor's first-order concerns (identification, the channel, measurement, or the model) before writing the letter. Plans and drafts the response; it does not run the new analyses from scratch (revacc-data-analysis) or re-run the submission preflight (revacc-submission).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) review cycle — its fast, first-round-decision culture, double-blind process, the RAST Conference path, and when to consider a sibling venue. Sets expectations and strategy; it does not run the submission preflight (revacc-submission) or draft the response letter (revacc-rebuttal).

Use when a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript is close to submission and needs the Editorial Manager preflight — anonymization for double-blind review, the submission fee and its deadline, file completeness, and format compliance. Runs the preflight; it does not polish prose (revacc-writing-style) or plan the review cycle (revacc-review-process).

Use when the exhibits are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — building self-contained accounting panel tables, event-study and equilibrium figures, and a descriptive-statistics block that survives referee scrutiny. Builds the exhibits; it does not run the analysis (revacc-data-analysis) or polish the surrounding prose (revacc-writing-style).

Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or testable predictions are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — articulating the friction behind an accounting effect or building a parsimonious disclosure/contracting model with proven propositions. Builds the argument; it does not design identification (revacc-methods) or run estimation (revacc-data-analysis).

Use when scoping or pressure-testing the research question for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — confirming it is a contribution-driven financial-accounting question that fits RAST's archival/analytical/experimental lanes. Locks the question; it does not build the model (revacc-theory-development) or design identification (revacc-methods).

Use when deciding which revacc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when the prose is the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — front-loading the contribution, writing an abstract and introduction that land, and adopting the accounting house voice. Polishes the manuscript; it does not sharpen the contribution claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build exhibits (revacc-tables-figures).

Use when the causal-identification or measurement strategy is the bottleneck for a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript — a DID / RD / IV / shift-share design, or a measurement / measurement-error problem. Stress-tests the design to REStat's applied-econometrics-and-measurement bar before exhibits are finalized.

Use when the marginal contribution of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript against the closest prior work is fuzzy, generic, or oversold. Stakes the contribution precisely; it does not run analysis or write the full literature review.

Use when a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) has arrived and the manuscript needs a response-to-referees letter and a revision plan. Drafts the response strategy; it does not run new analysis (route that to the analysis skills).

Use when anticipating the objections a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) referee will raise for a given design, and pre-empting them in the manuscript before submission. Maps threats to defenses; it does not draft the post-decision response letter (that is restat-rebuttal).

Use when assembling the data-and-code replication package for a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript under the journal's Data and Code Availability Policy — the deposit to the REStat Harvard Dataverse with a README that permits replication. Builds the package; it does not run the primary analysis.

Use when the headline estimate of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript needs to survive specification, sample, measurement, and inference choices before submission. Builds the robustness suite that REStat referees expect; it does not establish the primary identification.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) via Editorial Express — format rules, abstract limit, online-appendix cap, article categories, submission fee, the proprietary-data fee hold, and house style. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building or revising the exhibits of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript so the main result is legible in one table or figure in AEA/REStat house style. Designs publication-grade exhibits; it does not run the underlying estimation.

Use when deciding how much theory or structure a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript should carry — right-sizing a model so it interprets or disciplines the empirical estimate without becoming the contribution. Calibrates the theory's role; it does not develop new theory for its own sake.

Use when deciding whether an applied-economics project fits The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) rather than AER / AEJ:Applied / J. Econometrics / a field journal, and sharpening the question to REStat's empirical-and-measurement bar. Decides venue fit and frames the question; it does not run the analysis.

Use when deciding which restat-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when revising the prose of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript — especially the abstract and introduction — so the applied question and the estimate land immediately in REStat house style. Polishes framing and prose; it does not change results or identification.

Use when testing exhaustiveness, risk-of-bias, heterogeneity, and sensitivity for a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis. Hardens the synthesis against omission and fragility; it does not build the conceptual spine (revedres-organizing-framework) or settle coding reliability and open materials (revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Use when anticipating editor and reviewer expectations, framing the contribution, and positioning scope for a Review of Educational Research (RER) submission. Aligns the review with how RER is refereed; it does not run the submission preflight (revedres-submission) or draft the response to reviewers (revedres-revision).

Use when executing the systematic search, screening to a PRISMA flow, and extracting data for a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis. Builds the documented evidence corpus; it does not impose the conceptual spine (revedres-organizing-framework) or run robustness/risk-of-bias appraisal (revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when turning a screened, coded corpus into an analytic spine that advances theory or policy for a Review of Educational Research (RER) manuscript. Builds the conceptual contribution beyond a tally; it does not run the search (revedres-literature-synthesis) or appraise robustness/risk-of-bias (revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when writing the protocol, fixing scope and eligibility, and (where applicable) preregistering a systematic review or meta-analysis before searching, for a Review of Educational Research (RER) manuscript. Produces the a-priori plan; it does not run the search (revedres-literature-synthesis) or impose the conceptual spine (revedres-organizing-framework).

Use when an editor/reviewer decision letter arrives on a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis and you must plan the revision and response. Turns the letter into action and a point-by-point reply; it does not run the submission preflight (revedres-submission) or re-architect the framework from scratch (revedres-organizing-framework).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Review of Educational Research (RER) manuscript via Manuscript Central — masking, APA 7, the 150-word abstract, file set, and reporting-standard attachments. Checks readiness to submit; it does not negotiate scope (revedres-editor-strategy) or handle the decision letter (revedres-revision).

Use when designing the PRISMA flow diagram, forest/funnel plots, and coding/evidence tables for a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis. Builds exhibits that carry the synthesis; it does not run the analyses (revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance) or settle reproducibility of the underlying data (revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Use when deciding whether a question is synthesis-worthy and RER-scale before committing to a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis. Tests fit and frames the contribution; it does not run the search (revedres-literature-synthesis) or write the protocol (revedres-proposal-and-commissioning).

Use when settling coding reliability, open materials, PRISMA/MARS reporting, and a reproducible meta-analysis for a Review of Educational Research (RER) manuscript. Makes the review auditable and re-runnable; it does not run the substantive robustness analyses (revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance) or design the exhibits (revedres-tables-figures).

Use when deciding which revedres-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a systematic review, meta-analysis, or critical integrative synthesis from question-scoping through revision for a Review of Educational Research (RER) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when drafting or revising prose, the 150-word abstract, and the introduction in the Review of Educational Research (RER) synthesizing voice and APA 7 style. Lands the integrative voice; it does not build the analytic spine (revedres-organizing-framework) or design exhibits (revedres-tables-figures).

Use when packaging an ACM SIGCOMM paper's code, traces, topologies, and configuration for the artifact-evaluation committee — choosing ACM badges (Artifacts Available, Evaluated, Results Reproduced) as claim calibration, building downscaled topologies and trace substitutes, and making a networking testbed result rebuildable by a reviewer.

Use when drafting an ACM SIGCOMM rebuttal or executing a shepherd-run one-shot revision — triaging reviewer issues, writing a decision-focused anonymous rebuttal for the discussion phase, and building the revision packet (point-by-point response, change-marked manuscript, and list of changes) against the required-changes contract.

Use when preparing an accepted ACM SIGCOMM paper for the TAPS proceedings — clearing shepherd sign-off in HotCRP, uploading the final PDF plus source under acmart, de-anonymizing author and deployment identity, keeping the 12-page body under ACM two-column reflow, appendix-necessity approval, and releasing the public artifact by the badge deadline.

Use when designing or auditing ACM SIGCOMM experiments — climbing the evidence ladder from microbenchmarks to testbed and trace replay to deployment, choosing baselines that match the deployed state of the art, reporting tail percentiles and variance over repeated trials, mapping break points, and holding the fair variable fixed.

Use when positioning an ACM SIGCOMM submission against the networking literature — sweeping SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, and SIGMETRICS plus journals, proving each placement via dblp and the ACM Digital Library, distinguishing main-track papers from CCR editorials, handling concurrent work, and keeping self-citation double-blind-safe.

Use when strengthening the reproducibility evidence of an ACM SIGCOMM paper — topology and testbed ledgers, traffic workload and trace provenance, configuration and version pinning, tail-percentile run counts and variance, legal data-release decisions, and consistency between the paper's claims and the artifact that backs them.

Use when explaining or planning around ACM SIGCOMM peer review — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, the early-reject cut for consensus rejections, the rebuttal for discussion-phase papers, the shepherd-run one-shot revision that ends in accept or reject only, shepherding of accepted papers, and how the outcome space shapes author strategy.

Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an ACM SIGCOMM submission — the abstract-registration-then-paper sequence on the SIGCOMM HotCRP site, the AoE deadline clock, the 12 single-spaced pre-reference pages including figures and tables, double-blind anonymization, ACM acmart formatting, and the research-versus-experience track choice.

Use when organizing the material around an ACM SIGCOMM paper — deciding what lives in the 12-page body versus references versus optional appendices, keeping the main paper self-contained, anticipating the shepherd's appendix-necessity approval, and placing extended measurements and proofs outside the cap without hiding load-bearing content.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ACM SIGCOMM fit, choosing the research versus experience track, identifying the networking-stack mechanism at the core of the contribution, and routing misfits to NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, SIGMETRICS, or a systems venue before writing begins.

Use when planning an ACM SIGCOMM project timeline around the single yearly deadline — venue fit, evidence lock, abstract registration and paper upload in February, the early-reject/rebuttal/one-shot-revision review pipeline, shepherd-run camera-ready, TAPS proceedings, artifact evaluation, and forward planning for the next edition.