Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — qualitative coding and data-to-theory construction, or quantitative estimation and robustness. Makes the evidence-to-theory link transparent; it does not design the study (see asq-methods).

Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.

Use when choosing and justifying the research design for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — qualitative (grounded-theory, ethnographic, historical) or quantitative — and setting the rigor bar. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see asq-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response to an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).

Use when understanding and navigating Administrative Science Quarterly's (ASQ) developmental, multi-round review process — decision types, reviewer/editor roles, and what each stage expects. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (see asq-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — fit, anonymization, format, exhibits, references, and the editorial-system submission. Checks readiness; it does not write or revise the manuscript.

Use when building and refining exhibits for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — qualitative data structures and data-to-theory tables, process models, and quantitative tables. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis behind them.

Use when building the theoretical engine for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — mechanisms, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis.

Use when judging whether a research idea fits Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) and has the *surprising* theoretical insight ASQ demands. Sharpens the puzzle and the contribution claim; it does not design the study or write theory sections.

Use when deciding which asq-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use for full-manuscript prose and narrative craft on an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — voice, structure, and the storytelling ASQ is known for. Polishes the writing; it does not change the theory or analysis.

Use when evaluating the model and analyzing results for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript so it survives expert systems review — independent model evaluation (observed vs. simulated, fit statistics), sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, and trade-off / scenario analysis across the system. Guides evaluation norms; it does not fabricate results or run the model.

Use when building figures and tables for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript so exhibits communicate interactions, dynamics, trade-offs, and model performance clearly. AgSy is a systems journal, so the best exhibits show trade-off frontiers, observed-vs-simulated fit, resource flows, and conceptual system diagrams — not just a bar chart of one treatment. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when articulating why an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) result matters — its relevance for farm design, management, decision support, or policy. AgSy values systems analysis that informs a decision, so this is what separates an AgSy paper from a methods demo. It frames implications honestly within the model's scope; it does not over-claim or invent impact.

Use when positioning an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a systems contribution. AgSy readers span agronomy, modelling, livestock, economics, environment, and food-system science, so the paper must engage the systems and modelling literatures they expect — not only one subfield. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when preparing the data, code, and model materials for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript. AgSy applies Elsevier's research-data policy, which treats software, code, and models as research data — deposit them in a repository and cite/link them, or state why they cannot be shared. Covers model-description standards and exemptions. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when writing the response to an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) revision decision. AgSy review is single anonymized with at least two expert systems reviewers and an editor decision, and revisions often turn on model evaluation, sensitivity/uncertainty, and trade-off framing. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Agricultural Systems (AgSy) via Editorial Manager — article-type selection, abstract <= 250 words, Highlights, graphical abstract, CRediT and declaration-of-interest statements, ORCID, reference style, and data/code/model availability. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when framing the system and describing the model for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript — defining system boundaries, components, hierarchical levels, and feedbacks, then choosing, describing, and calibrating the model (process/simulation, whole-farm, bio-economic, agent-based, or integrated assessment). This is the distinctive core of an AgSy paper. Structures the model and system; it does not run code for you.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Agricultural Systems (AgSy) and which article type to target. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the test is a genuine systems question — interactions among components, across hierarchical levels (field → farm → landscape → region → food system), trade-offs, and emergent behavior — analyzed with integrated modelling, NOT a single-factor field trial. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript. Routes to the right AgSy sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (research paper, short communication, perspective, comment, review) fits. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the router's first job is to confirm there is a real systems question — interactions, hierarchical levels, trade-offs — not a single-factor field trial. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript so it reads clearly for a systems-science audience, follows the journal's format, and meets front-matter requirements (abstract <= 250 words, Highlights, graphical abstract). Research papers run to about 8,000 words (no hard cap). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when planning or reporting the analysis for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — multilevel/HLM and growth models, IRT/measurement, quasi-experimental estimation, or qualitative coding and thematic analysis. Analysis must meet the AERA reporting standards (warrant + transparency). Strengthens analysis reporting; it does not run models for you.

Use when positioning an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript in the literature. AERJ readers span the whole field, so the paper must engage the literatures a general education-research audience expects and speak past its own subfield. Builds the positioning argument; it does not write the literature review for you.

Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the section editor (SIA or TLHD) and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — quantitative (multilevel, IRT, quasi-experimental, RCT), qualitative (case study, ethnography, interview), or mixed methods. AERJ judges each tradition on its own terms against the AERA reporting standards. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript will be judged — masked (anonymous) peer review, desk screening, routing to the right section (SIA or TLHD), and decision categories. Sets expectations and informs strategy; it does not contact editors or reviewers.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) via ScholarOne Manuscript Central — section selection (SIA vs TLHD), masked preparation, length and abstract limits, APA 7th-edition formatting, ORCID, and a separate title page. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. Exhibits must be self-contained, accessible, and formatted to APA 7th edition, and they must be anonymized for masked review. Improves exhibits; it does not generate data.

Use when building the conceptual or theoretical framework for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects a clear framework that frames the question, guides the design and analysis, and elevates a result into a contribution to understanding. Strengthens the framework; it does not invent theory.

Use when deciding whether a topic fits the American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) and which of its two separately edited sections — Social and Institutional Analysis (SIA) or Teaching, Learning, and Human Development (TLHD) — to target. AERJ rewards broad significance to education research, not subfield-only description. Tests fit and routes the section; it does not generate research questions.

Use when preparing the transparency, reporting, and data-availability materials for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects work to meet the AERA Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research (quantitative + qualitative) and the AERA Code of Ethics expectations on making data available. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use as the entry point for any American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. Routes to the right AERJ sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which of the journal's two separately edited sections — Social and Institutional Analysis (SIA) or Teaching, Learning, and Human Development (TLHD) — fits the paper. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ is read across the whole field, follows APA 7th-edition style, and expects a 100–120-word abstract within a roughly 20–50-page manuscript. Improves clarity and compliance; it does not ghostwrite the paper.

Use when turning archival findings into a sustained historical argument for The American Historical Review (AHR). The AHR rewards a clear thesis that earns its claims from evidence while remaining alert to contingency and complexity. Builds the argument and its stakes; it does not gather new sources or fabricate evidence.

Use when formatting citations and notes for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript. The AHR follows the Chicago Manual of Style with all references in footnotes/endnotes — no bibliography or works-cited list and no in-text parenthetical citation. Gets the note apparatus right; it does not write the prose or argument.

Use when positioning an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript within the historiography so it reads as an intervention, not a report. AHR readers are historians across fields who expect you to engage the relevant scholarship and say precisely what you change. Stakes the contribution against prior work; it does not write the literature survey.

Use when choosing and defending an interpretive approach for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript — social, cultural, intellectual, political, economic, transnational, global, microhistory, or the history of knowledge. The AHR welcomes many methods judged on their own terms. Sharpens interpretation and scale; it does not impose a single template.

Use to understand how The American Historical Review (AHR) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind anonymous review by at least six scholars, a six-to-eight-month timeline, an 8-10% acceptance rate, and the large commissioned book/media review section. Sets expectations and shapes the article to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when responding to an American Historical Review (AHR) decision — a revise-and-resubmit or rejection. AHR articles are read by at least six demanding specialists, so the response must address expert reports while protecting the argument and keeping the manuscript anonymized. Structures the revision and response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.

Use when handling primary sources and archives for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript — distinguishing primary from secondary, criticizing sources, citing manuscripts and collections in Chicago notes, and clearing image permissions. The AHR judges history on the quality and criticism of its evidence. Strengthens source work; it does not invent archival material.

Use when organizing an American Historical Review (AHR) article so narrative and analysis work together within the roughly 8,000-word target (notes excluded). The AHR prizes articles that tell a story and argue a point at once. Shapes structure and flow; it does not generate the underlying argument or evidence.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The American Historical Review (AHR) via ScholarOne — masked-author preparation, the roughly 8,000-word target, Chicago notes, manuscript formatting, image alt-text and permissions, and the exclusivity declaration. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when deciding whether a history project fits The American Historical Review (AHR) and how to frame its significance. The AHR is the discipline's generalist flagship across all periods and places, so the test is significance to historians beyond your subfield, not local novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not do the archival research.

Use as the entry point for any American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript. Routes to the right AHR sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle of a history article — from significance and historiography through archives, interpretation, Chicago-style prose, review, and revision. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript so it reads with clarity and authority for historians across all fields. The AHR rewards lucid, narrative-aware scholarly prose, not jargon. Tightens voice and readability; it does not invent content or argument.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS will have a third-party verifier re-run your exact code against the numerical results in the main text before publication, so analyze reproducibly from the first line. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript against the literature. AJPS is double-blind, so positioning must engage the relevant debates while keeping the manuscript fully anonymized (third-person self-citation, no first-person "we showed"). Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) revise-and-resubmit. The revised manuscript stays double-blind, the response memorandum is submitted anonymized, and any new analyses must keep the replication package re-runnable for the third-party verifier at acceptance. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.