Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when building the replication package for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS is famous for MANDATORY third-party PRE-publication verification — an independent verifier re-runs your deposited code and confirms it reproduces the numerical results in the main text before the article is published, with materials deposited to the AJPS Dataverse on Harvard Dataverse. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use when defending the research design of an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript — causal identification for observational work, experimental and survey-experimental design, formal-empirical linkage, or case-based inference. AJPS reviewers are quantitatively demanding, so identification must license the claim being made. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind peer review, desk screening, decision categories, the methodology-only Research Note and Correspondence routes, and the third-party verification that follows acceptance. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) via Editorial Manager — submission-type selection, full anonymizing for double-blind review, word/abstract caps, APSA-or-Chicago formatting, the 20-page Supporting Information limit, and human-subjects/IRB documentation. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS counts table/figure headers and notes toward the word limit, and the deposited code must regenerate every exhibit exactly for third-party verification. Designs self-contained, reproducible exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript — whether empirical with explicit mechanisms, formal/game-theoretic, or measurement-driven. AJPS rewards testable theory tightly linked to the empirical strategy, with hypotheses stated before the results. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) and which submission type (Article, Research Note, Correspondence) to target. AJPS is a generalist but quantitatively leaning venue that rewards a sharp, well-identified question with a generalizable payoff. Helps frame the question and pick the type; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. Routes to the right AJPS sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which submission type (Article, Research Note, Correspondence) fits, and reminds you that AJPS re-runs your code via a third-party verifier before publishing. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript so it fits the word caps (Articles <= 10,000 words; Research Notes and Correspondence <= 4,000; abstract <= 150 words), follows the APSA Style Manual or Chicago 18th edition, and stays fully anonymized for double-blind review. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when planning or auditing the analysis of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript so the evidence credibly supports the theoretical claim. Covers analysis norms, uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation across quantitative, comparative-historical, and ethnographic work. Improves the analysis chain; it does not fabricate results.

Use when handling data documentation, sharing, and confidentiality for an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript. AJS does NOT advertise a mandatory editor-verified replication package like APSR/AJPS; document thoroughly, share what you ethically can, and verify the current policy. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state requirements.

Use when positioning an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript within the literature so it reads as in dialogue with current sociology. AJS reviewers are assigned by readers who locate the paper's substantive area and method, and the journal prizes engagement with live theoretical debates. Maps the conversation; it does not write the literature review.

Use when responding to an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) decision — an R&R response letter to multiple double-blind reviewers and the editor, or an author Reply to a published Comment in AJS's Comment-and-Reply tradition. Structures a persuasive, evidence-based response; it does not fabricate results or contact editors.

Use when defending the research design of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript on its own methodological terms — quantitative, comparative-historical, ethnographic, network, or formal. AJS judges each kind of work by the standards of its tradition; the design must support the theoretical claim. Defends the design; it does not run the analysis.

Use to understand how the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) evaluates a manuscript — its distinctive student-run, double-blind review out of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology, the "preject" screen, reviewer assignment by a Manuscript Assignment Board, and decision categories. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) via Editorial Manager — the $30 submission fee (waived for sole-author grad students), the separate cover page for double-blind review, the ~150-word abstract, mandatory figure alt text, AJS house style, and the originality statement. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript to AJS house conventions — discrete consecutive numbering, appendix-table lettering, separate exhibit sections after the text, and mandatory alt text for every figure at submission. Prepares exhibits; it does not generate data.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript into a portable, discipline-level contribution. AJS prizes theoretical ambition above a bare finding — explicit concepts, mechanisms, and scope conditions, in the idiom of the work (quantitative, comparative-historical, ethnographic, or formal). Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a sociology project fits the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) and how to frame it. AJS is the discipline's oldest generalist journal, with a premium on theoretical ambition and dialogue with current sociology; the test is general significance plus a portable theoretical payoff, not subfield novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript. Routes to the right AJS sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether the piece is a research article, a Comment/Reply, or a book-review response. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when shaping the prose, structure, and citations of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript to AJS's own author-date house style (NOT the ASA Style Guide). AJS rewards theoretically ambitious, generalist-legible writing and has specific notes/references conventions. Polishes the writing; it does not invent content.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymous review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a discipline-wide contribution. APSR readers span subfields, so the paper must engage the literatures they expect and avoid the desk-rejection trigger of "failure to engage the relevant literatures." Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to an American Political Science Review (APSR) revise-and-resubmit. APSR reserves R&R for papers close to publishable, and decisions weigh strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, case selection and process tracing for qualitative work, experimental and survey-experimental design, or formal-empirical linkage. APSR judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how the American Political Science Review (APSR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review, desk-rejection screening (remit / ethics / substance), the reject / accept / revise-and-resubmit decision categories, editor discretion, and the Registered Reports route. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Political Science Review (APSR) via Editorial Manager — track selection, double-anonymous preparation, word/abstract caps, APSA-style formatting, ORCID, and declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and count toward the word budget correctly. APSR word counts include tables, figures, and printed footnotes, so exhibits must earn their space. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript into a discipline-level contribution — whether the work is formal/game-theoretic, empirical with explicit mechanisms, interpretive, or normative. APSR rewards a clear, portable argument over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the American Political Science Review (APSR) and which of its five tracks to target. APSR is the discipline's generalist flagship, so the test is general significance across subfields, not subfield novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use when preparing the reproducibility / replication materials for an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript. APSR requires conditionally accepted authors to deposit a reproducibility package in the APSR Dataverse (Harvard Dataverse), which the editorial office verifies before publication. Covers quantitative and qualitative transparency and exemptions. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use as the entry point for any American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript. Routes to the right APSR sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which of the five tracks (Regular Article, Research Note, Replication/Reappraisal, Synthesis, Registered Report) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript so it reads for the whole discipline, follows the APSA Style Manual, and fits the word caps (most Articles < 11,000 words; Research Notes < 7,000; abstract <= 150 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript so it survives expert masked review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and evidence handling appropriate to quantitative, demographic, comparative-historical, or computational sociology. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when handling data documentation, sharing, and confidentiality for an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript. ASR follows the ASA data-sharing policy — share data and documentation after a project's completion or major publications, with confidentiality and proprietary exemptions — rather than a mandatory editor-verified replication deposit. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state requirements.

Use when positioning an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a broad sociological contribution rather than a subfield note. Stakes the contribution in a debate that travels across sociology; it does not write the literature review.

Use when writing the response to an American Sociological Review (ASR) revise-and-resubmit. ASR R&Rs typically demand substantial revision and reviewers may span different methodological traditions, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript — causal/observational inference for quantitative and demographic work, case selection and comparison for comparative-historical work, site and informant logic for ethnography, and network/computational designs. ASR judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how the American Sociological Review (ASR) evaluates a manuscript — masked (anonymous) peer review, what reviewers across sociological traditions weigh, decision categories, and the ethics rules (no simultaneous submission). Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Sociological Review (ASR) via Sage Track — masked-manuscript preparation, the separate title page, word/abstract caps, ASA Style Guide formatting, the $25 processing fee, and ethics declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript. ASR excludes tables and figures from the 15,000-word count but still expects them to be clear, self-contained, and ASA-formatted. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript into a portable contribution — for quantitative, demographic, comparative-historical, ethnographic, network, or computational work. ASR rewards a mechanism that travels over a setting-bound finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a sociology project fits the American Sociological Review (ASR) and whether to write a full Article or a Comment/Reply. ASR is sociology's general flagship, so the test is broad significance and theoretical payoff across subfields, not novelty within one. Frames the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript. Routes to the right ASR sub-skill based on the lifecycle stage and the manuscript type (Article up to 15,000 words vs. Comment/Reply up to 3,000). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript so it reads for the whole discipline, follows the ASA Style Guide, and fits the limits (Articles <= 15,000 words including text, references, and footnotes; abstract 150-200 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when drafting the cover note to the editors for an Annals of Mathematics submission — concisely conveying the main result, its significance, scope fit, and any priority/overlap disclosures. Frames the submission; does not write the paper. Verify whether a cover letter is requested on the official submission page.

Use when organizing the exposition and structure of a pure-mathematics manuscript for Annals of Mathematics — sectioning, notation, statements-before-proofs, commutative diagrams, and readability for an expert non-specialist. Figures are optional and rare; this skill is about exposition first. Does not assess the proof's correctness.

Use when controlling the length of a pure-mathematics manuscript for Annals of Mathematics — math papers may be long, but every section must be necessary; this skill cuts bloat and padding while keeping the proof complete and gap-free. Late-stage; run after the proof and architecture are fixed.

Use when stating the main theorem(s) of a pure-mathematics manuscript precisely, establishing their significance, and positioning them against prior work for an Annals of Mathematics submission. Crafts statements and positioning; does not write the proof (see anmath-methods).

Use when responding to an Annals of Mathematics referee report — revising the manuscript to close gaps or strengthen results and writing a point-by-point reply. Drafts the revision and response after the text is fixed; does not invent significance the result lacks (see anmath-scope-fit).