Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when planning the full Journal of Applied Econometrics (JAE) manuscript lifecycle end to end — confirming an applied (not pure-theory) fit, running reproducible analysis under the 35-page limit, and staging the mandatory JAE Data Archive deposit. Orchestrator skill; routes to the other eleven.

Use when drafting or polishing prose for a Journal of Applied Econometrics (JAE) manuscript to its house conventions — a 100-word citation-free summary, up to six keywords, sectioned structure, a conflict-of-interest statement, acknowledgments that do not thank reviewers, and citation-style-agnostic Free Format references.

Use when sharpening the contribution claim for a Journal of Banking & Finance paper so the manuscript explains why the result matters for banking, financial intermediation, markets, regulation, or corporate finance.

Use when building or auditing the empirical data and estimation pipeline for a Journal of Banking & Finance manuscript, including financial datasets, bank panels, winsorization, fixed effects, robustness, and reproducible scripts.

Use when stress-testing the empirical identification strategy for a Journal of Banking & Finance manuscript, including bank panels, policy shocks, event studies, IV, staggered DID, dynamic panels, and endogeneity threats.

Use when positioning a Journal of Banking & Finance manuscript against banking, intermediation, corporate finance, investments, regulation, and capital-market literatures so the contribution is precise rather than a generic finance literature review.

Use when responding to a Journal of Banking & Finance revise-and-resubmit, including triaging referee reports, strengthening identification, adding robustness, preserving anonymity where needed, and drafting a point-by-point response letter.

Use when preparing the data availability statement, code archive, Mendeley Data or repository materials, and proprietary-data documentation for a Journal of Banking & Finance manuscript under Elsevier research-data expectations.

Use to understand the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF) editorial pipeline — the desk screen, double-anonymized refereeing, the role of the USD 350 fee in reviewer rewards, and what to expect between submission and decision. Sets expectations; pair with jbf-rebuttal once you receive an R&R.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF) via Elsevier Editorial Manager — the USD 350 submission fee, double-anonymized manuscript plus separate title page, free-format submission, author-date references, keywords/JEL, Highlights, SSRN posting, and the generative-AI declaration. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when preparing Journal of Banking & Finance tables and figures: descriptive statistics, regression tables, event-study plots, mechanism/heterogeneity exhibits, appendix robustness, and self-contained notes.

Use when deciding whether an empirical or theoretical finance manuscript fits the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF) scope, especially banking, financial intermediation, financial institutions, capital markets, investments, corporate finance, or financial regulation.

Router for the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF) skill pack — tells you which JBF sub-skill to use next across the manuscript lifecycle, from topic fit through Editorial Manager submission and R&R rebuttal. Start here when unsure where you are.

Use when polishing Journal of Banking & Finance prose, structure, abstracts, introductions, variable definitions, result paragraphs, and Elsevier author-date reference style for a concise finance-journal manuscript.

Use when turning results or a theory into an explicit contribution for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) — stating what new theory of the entrepreneurial phenomenon the paper delivers, its boundary conditions, and its multidisciplinary reach. Frames the claim; it does not build the mechanism (jbv-theory-development) or polish the prose (jbv-writing-style).

Use when running and reporting the analysis for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — choosing estimators that fit entrepreneurial data (survival/event-history, selection models, panels, experiments, qualitative trustworthiness), handling attrition and endogenous founding, and reporting robustness. Executes and reports the analysis; it does not design the study (jbv-methods) or frame the contribution (jbv-contribution-framing).

Use when positioning a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript in the entrepreneurship literature — joining a live conversation, problematizing assumptions instead of gap-spotting, and engaging across economics, psychology, and sociology. Positions the paper; it does not derive the mechanism (jbv-theory-development) or state the contribution claim (jbv-contribution-framing).

Use when designing or defending the research design for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — matching a methodologically pluralistic but theory-first approach (venture panels, experiments, qualitative process work, mixed methods) to an entrepreneurial question, and handling selection, survival, and novel-dataset issues. Designs the study; it does not estimate it (jbv-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (jbv-contribution-framing).

Use after a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) R&R to plan revisions and draft the point-by-point response letter — prioritizing the field editor's concerns, defending or strengthening the entrepreneurship contribution, and addressing selection/survivorship/identification threats across multiple rounds. Drafts the revision plan and response; interpret the letter first with jbv-review-process.

Use when understanding how the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) review process works — field-editor routing under the EIC, double-anonymized review by a minimum of two reviewers, desk-reject risk for off-phenomenon work, and reading a JBV decision letter. Explains the process and reads the letter; the response is drafted with jbv-rebuttal.

Use when preparing to submit a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript through Elsevier Editorial Manager — double-anonymized preparation, required declarations (competing interest, generative-AI), Your-Paper-Your-Way formatting, the data availability statement, open-access/APC choice, and optional Data in Brief / MethodsX co-submission. Handles the submission preflight; it does not write the paper (jbv-writing-style) or manage the review (jbv-review-process).

Use when building or cleaning the exhibits for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — venture descriptive/correlation tables, survival curves, interaction plots, process models, and qualitative data structures in Elsevier house style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the entrepreneurial mechanism or identification is still unsettled (use jbv-theory-development / jbv-data-analysis first).

Use when building the theoretical argument for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — constructing a multidisciplinary mechanism (economics, psychology, sociology) for an entrepreneurial phenomenon, and choosing between hypothesis-testing and narrative/interpretive theorizing. Builds the argument; it does not pick the question (jbv-topic-selection) or run the analysis (jbv-data-analysis).

Use when shaping or stress-testing a research question for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) — confirming the entrepreneurial phenomenon is central, picking a multidisciplinary lens, and checking fit before investing in theory or data. Defines the question; it does not build the mechanism (jbv-theory-development) or frame the contribution (jbv-contribution-framing).

Use when deciding which jbv-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing the prose of a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — front-loading the entrepreneurial phenomenon, writing for a multidisciplinary audience, honoring JBV's openness to narrative/interpretive voice, and applying Elsevier author–date conventions and a ≤250-word abstract. Late-stage polish; do not use as a substitute for a real entrepreneurship-theory contribution (jbv-contribution-framing).

Use when sharpening the core methodological contribution of a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) paper into one legible claim that pairs novelty with empirical relevance. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the theory or run the analysis.

Use when building the Monte Carlo evidence and the substantive empirical application for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) methods paper. Designs and audits the simulation study and the real-data analysis; it does not derive the asymptotic theory (see jbes-identification-strategy).

Use when the methodological core of a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) paper is the bottleneck — assumptions, regularity conditions, asymptotic theory, and Monte Carlo design for a new estimator, test, or algorithm. Stress-tests the method's validity, not a causal design.

Use when positioning a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) methods paper against prior econometric and statistical methods. Stakes what is new relative to the existing toolkit; it does not write a standalone literature survey.

Use when a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) decision letter arrives (R&R or major revision) and a response strategy and letter are needed for a methods paper. Structures the revision and response; it does not redo the analysis (route to the relevant jbes-* skill).

Use when assembling the reproducible data-and-code supplement for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) paper under the American Statistical Association (ASA) data-sharing and reproducibility policy. Builds the supplement; it does not run the analysis itself.

Use when planning around the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) peer-review process — the multi-Co-Editor model, what method referees scrutinize, and the discussion-paper tradition. Sets expectations; it does not draft the response letter (see jbes-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) — files, the data-and-code supplement, declarations, and the cover letter for a multi-Co-Editor methods journal. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when designing the simulation tables and figures for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) methods paper so size, power, coverage, and the empirical results are legible to both statisticians and applied economists. Improves exhibits; it does not change results.

Use when deciding whether a project fits the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) — the methods-with-empirics fit test. Checks methodological novelty plus clear empirical relevance before time is sunk; it does not develop the method itself.

Use when deciding which jbes-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing methods-paper work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing prose, theorem statements, the abstract, and the introduction for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) methods paper so the methodological contribution and its empirical relevance both land. Polishes exposition; it does not change theory or results.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymous review — honest uncertainty, robustness, reliability, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, computational, or content-analytic work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a field-wide contribution. JoC readers span communication subfields and traditions, so the paper must engage the literatures they expect rather than only a single platform or topic niche. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when preparing the open-science and transparency materials for a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript. JoC requires a Data Availability Statement and supports Open Science Badges for open data, open materials, and preregistration. Covers quantitative, computational, and qualitative transparency and the restricted-data path. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use when revising a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript after a revise-and-resubmit. The hard problem at JoC is that communication is a multi-paradigm field, so a single R&R can carry post-positivist, interpretive, critical, and computational reviewers who want incompatible things — inside a fixed 35-page cap. Plans the revision and response memo; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript — experimental and survey design, content analysis with intercoder reliability, computational/text-as-data validation, or qualitative/critical inquiry. JoC judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how the Journal of Communication (JoC) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review, editorial screening for fit, external review by two or three referees, decision categories, and editor discretion. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of Communication (JoC) via Manuscript Central — format selection, double-anonymous preparation, page/abstract caps, APA-7th formatting, Word (.docx), the Data Availability Statement, and declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, APA-formatted, and counted toward the page budget correctly. JoC's 35-page limit includes tables and figures, so exhibits must earn their space. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript into a field-level contribution — whether the work is mechanistic-empirical, computational, interpretive, or critical. JoC rewards a clear, portable communication-theory argument over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a communication project fits the Journal of Communication (JoC) and which format (original article vs. JoC Forum) to target. JoC is the field's generalist flagship, so the test is general significance across communication research, not platform novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript. Routes to the right JoC sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which format (original research article, JoC Forum, special issue) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript so it reads for the whole field, follows APA 7th edition, and fits the limits (main document <= 35 pages including references/tables/figures/endnotes; abstract <= 150 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.