Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when positioning a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript within the accounting literature — identifying the conversation it joins, distinguishing it from closely related accounting/finance/economics work, and disclosing overlap with the authors' own related papers as CAR's author declaration requires.

Use when the research design and identification are the bottleneck for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — choosing and defending an archival, experimental, analytical, field, or survey design and, for human-participant work, meeting CAR's mandatory ethics-approval verification. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation (car-data-analysis).

Use after a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) revise-and-resubmit — planning the revision and drafting a point-by-point response to two reviewers and the subject Editor, including any new analyses, robustness, and updated Data Integrity/code-sharing materials. Drafts the response; it does not run the new estimation (car-data-analysis) or the final preflight (car-submission).

Use when you need to understand how Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) evaluates a manuscript — the double-anonymous, two-reviewer process, the role of the subject Editor and the EIC who approves all acceptances, generative-AI rules for reviewers, and CAR's formal appeals process. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (car-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — Editorial Manager files (blind manuscript, separate title page, author declaration, ethics-approval verification, proof of payment), the $250/$600 submission fee, length/abstract limits, and the Data Integrity items collected at submission. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (car-rebuttal).

Use when building the exhibits of a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — descriptive/correlation/results tables for archival work, experimental cell-means and ANOVA tables, model figures, and appendices — formatted to the CAR Style Guide (each exhibit on a new page, variable definitions, footnotes not endnotes). Builds exhibits; it does not run the analysis (car-data-analysis).

Use when building the conceptual engine of a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — the economic or behavioral mechanism, predictions/hypotheses, or the formal model — adapted to whether the paper is archival, experimental, analytical, or qualitative. Builds the argument; it does not run estimation (car-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (car-contribution-framing).

Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — testing fit with CAR's deliberately method-agnostic, all-topic-areas accounting scope and picking the research tradition (archival, experimental, analytical, field, qualitative) that the question demands.

Use when deciding which car-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing the prose of a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — a front-loaded research question, disciplined accounting terminology, the ≤300-word abstract that states question/predictions/method/findings/implications, and CAR Style Guide conventions (footnotes not endnotes, author-date references on a new page). Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (car-submission).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so it survives expert review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and methods appropriate to crime counts, longitudinal panels, trajectory models, and recidivism survival. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when preparing the data, replication, and transparency materials for a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript — data-availability statements, reproducibility packages, preregistration, and handling restricted criminal-justice data under DUAs. Criminology operates under growing open-science norms (Wiley open-science badges, ICPSR/NACJD archiving). Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use when positioning a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to the field's live debates, not a citation pile. Criminology readers expect engagement with the relevant theoretical tradition and the closest prior empirical work across the field's many disciplines. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) revise-and-resubmit. Criminology revisions usually require converting multiple expert reviewers across the field's disciplines while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent and the theoretical contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, longitudinal and life-course designs, criminal-career and trajectory methods, place-based and experimental designs, or case selection and process tracing for qualitative work. Criminology judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how Criminology (ASC / Wiley) evaluates a manuscript — blinded/anonymized peer review, editorial screening, the typical reject / major-revision / minor-revision / accept outcomes, and what expert reviewers weigh in this interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Criminology (ASC / Wiley) via the Wiley Research Exchange portal — anonymized main document plus separate title page, APA-based formatting, bias-free language, single-submission commitment, and (待核实) length/abstract caps and ORCID. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and communicate crime patterns clearly — age-crime curves, trajectory-group plots, recidivism survival curves, hot-spot maps, and effect plots. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript into a field-level contribution. Criminology rewards an explicit mechanism, scope conditions, and observable implications over a bare crime correlation, whether the work tests, extends, or adjudicates a criminological theory. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Criminology (ASC / Wiley) and whether to target a full Article or a Research Note. Criminology is the discipline's interdisciplinary flagship, so the test is a general criminological contribution about the etiology, patterning, or control of crime — not a dataset-specific correlation. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript. Routes to the right crim sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether the paper is a full Article or a Research Note. Criminology is theory-forward and interdisciplinary, so the router first checks that the paper makes a criminological contribution, not just reports a crime correlation. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript so it reads for an interdisciplinary criminology audience, follows the journal's APA-based style, and uses bias-free, person-first language for justice-involved populations. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use to forge the central argument of a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay into a genuine intervention. CI rewards a bold claim that reorients a conversation in criticism and theory, with stakes that cross disciplines — not a competent reading, a survey, or a method demonstration. Sharpens the thesis and its stakes; it does not fabricate evidence or theory.

Use to format a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay's references and figures to journal standard — Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) footnotes numbered consecutively, no works-cited list, with all bibliographical information carried in the notes (and counted toward the word limit), plus images supplied as separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF with author-secured permissions. Formats the apparatus; it does not write the argument.

Use to choose and read the objects a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay analyzes — texts, images, artworks, films, performances, events, or cases. In CI the "evidence" is not data but objects read closely through theory; this skill helps select objects that test and earn the intervention and handle images to journal standard. It guides selection and reading; it does not run statistics or build datasets.

Use to understand how Critical Inquiry (CI) evaluates a submission — peer review plus close reading by the editors-in-chief in consultation with the editorial team, the no-simultaneous-submission rule, the commissioned/special-issue routes, and the high ambition bar that defines the journal. Sets expectations and shapes the essay to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when revising a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay after a decision and writing the response to readers and editors. CI acceptance typically follows author revisions, and the editors-in-chief read closely, so the revision must strengthen the intervention and the response must address every point without diluting the argument. Structures the revision and response; it does not fabricate new readings or evidence.

Use to situate a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay within the conversations it enters across the arts and humanities. CI is interdisciplinary, so positioning means naming the critical and theoretical debates the essay joins — across literature, art, film, philosophy, politics, history — and the precise place where it intervenes, not a discipline-internal literature review. Frames the stakes; it does not write the prose.

Use to architect a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay — the order in which intervention, objects, and theory unfold so a reader from another field can follow an ambitious argument. CI essays are long-form humanistic prose, not IMRaD reports; this skill shapes the opening, the build, the turn, and the close. It structures the essay; it does not draft full sections.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Critical Inquiry (CI) via Editorial Manager — format selection, the 9,500-word limit (including discursive notes and all bibliographical information), Microsoft Word manuscript, Chicago (17th ed.) footnotes with no works-cited list, separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF images with author-secured permissions, and the no-simultaneous-submission rule. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use to choose and deploy the theoretical framework and critical method of a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay so theory does real analytic work on objects. CI is a leading theory journal across the humanities; this skill helps select a lens (hermeneutic, deconstructive, psychoanalytic, materialist, postcolonial, media-theoretical, etc.), use concepts precisely, and avoid jargon-as-decoration. It guides theoretical craft; it does not invent sources.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Critical Inquiry (CI) and which format to target. CI is the leading interdisciplinary journal of criticism and theory in the arts and humanities, associated with no single school and tied to no single discipline; the test is a theoretical intervention with stakes beyond one field, not subfield novelty or a competent close reading alone. Helps frame the project; it does not gather sources.

Use as the entry point for any Critical Inquiry (CI) essay. Routes to the right CI sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which format (Article, Critical Response, Review) fits. CI is an interdisciplinary journal of criticism and theory in the arts and humanities; the router's job is to keep the project pointed at a bold theoretical intervention with interdisciplinary stakes. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay so it meets the journal's bar for ambitious, lucid critical writing and fits the word limit (articles ≤ 9,500 words including discursive notes and all bibliographical information; Critical Responses ≤ 3,000; Reviews ≤ 500). Tightens style and discipline; it does not invent argument or evidence.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — correct rate construction, honest uncertainty, and demographic methods done right (life tables, decomposition, event history, age-period-cohort). Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when preparing the data-availability statement and reproducibility materials for a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript. Demography requires a data availability statement at acceptance with persistent identifiers and encourages reproducible, commented code; it hosts no repository, so authors deposit in a FAIR repository. Covers restricted-data exemptions. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use when positioning a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript against the population-science literature so it reads as a contribution of general interest to demographers. Demography readers span fertility, mortality, migration, family, and health, so the paper must engage the demographic literatures they expect. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) revise-and-resubmit. Demography review is double-blind and synthesized by a topic-area Deputy Editor, so the response must convert every expert reviewer on demographic substance (rates, identification, methods) without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript — choosing among demographic methods (life tables, decomposition, event-history/survival, age-period-cohort, multistate, microsimulation, projections) and, where the question is causal, defending identification. Demography judges each method on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review, pre-review/desk screening by the Editor or a Deputy Editor, the role of topic-area Deputy Editors, and the grounds for desk rejection (inappropriate fit or unlikely to receive favorable reviews). Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) via ScholarOne Manuscripts — article-type selection, double-blind preparation, word/abstract/highlights/keywords limits, house-style formatting, the $35 submission fee, and the open-access (Subscribe to Open) model. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and within the journal's limits (Research Articles up to ~8 tables and figures; Research Notes up to 4). Covers distinctive demographic graphics — population pyramids, Lexis surfaces, survival curves, age schedules. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the argument of a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript into a population-science contribution — whether the work is formal/mathematical demography, an explanatory account of fertility/mortality/migration, or a measurement/decomposition advance. Demography rewards a clear mechanism or a sharpened estimate over a bare correlation. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) and which article type to target. Demography is the multidisciplinary population-science flagship, so the test is general interest to demographers and a genuine population-change question, not just use of demographic data. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript. Routes to the right Demography sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (Research Article, Research Note, Commentary) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript so it reads for population scientists across components, follows the journal's house style (loosely APA), and fits the limits (Research Articles <= 8,000 words main text; Notes <= 4,000; Commentaries <= 2,000; abstract <= 200 words; up to 5 keywords; 3-5 highlights). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use to frame the central result of an Econometric Theory (ET) paper so its generality and importance are legible — stating the theorem and its scope up front, choosing Article vs Miscellanea framing, and matching the new editorial program's themed directions.

Use for the Monte Carlo and numerical-illustration component of an Econometric Theory (ET) paper — designing simulations that show finite-sample behavior tracks the asymptotics, plus any illustrative empirical example. Lighter than empirical journals; the spine stays the theory.

Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, and asymptotic results are the bottleneck for an Econometric Theory (ET) theorem-proof paper — adapt "identification" to mean stating defensible assumptions, proving the limit theory, and establishing generality, not causal design.

Use to stake an Econometric Theory (ET) contribution against the existing theory frontier — which assumptions you weaken, which limit result you generalize, what was previously unproven — using APA author-date citations, not a standalone literature survey.