Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when positioning a The Journal of Politics (JOP) manuscript in the literature — staking a theoretically innovative, general-interest contribution while keeping the manuscript double-blind. JOP's page budget forces an efficient literature section, so engage the debates that matter without a survey. Frames the contribution; it does not write the paper.

Use when writing the response to a The Journal of Politics (JOP) revise-and-resubmit. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor, stay within JOP's page budget, keep the manuscript double-blind, and preserve replicability so the eventual JOP replication-analyst check passes. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when preparing the replication / data-access materials for a The Journal of Politics (JOP) manuscript. JOP makes acceptance contingent on replicability — a JOP replication analyst assigned at conditional acceptance assesses the package you deposit in the JOP Dataverse (Harvard Dataverse), and non-replicable manuscripts are rejected. Prepares the package; it does not waive the requirement.

Use when defending the research design of a The Journal of Politics (JOP) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, experimental and survey-experimental design, formal-empirical linkage, or case selection and process tracing for qualitative work. JOP is methodologically diverse and makes acceptance contingent on replicability, so design with reproducibility in mind. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how The Journal of Politics (JOP) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review, desk screening for fit and general interest, an efficiency-minded review process, and acceptance that is contingent on replicability checked by a JOP replication analyst. 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 Politics (JOP) via Editorial Manager — category selection, double-blind preparation, the page budget (Research Article <= 35 / Short Article <= 10, double-spaced 12-point), the Online Appendix <= 25 pages, abstract and keywords, and JOP Style Guide formatting. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when designing tables and figures for a The Journal of Politics (JOP) manuscript. JOP counts pages (not words) and includes tables and figures in the page limit, so exhibits must be self-contained, legible, regenerated by code, and economical with space. Designs exhibits; it does not run analyses.

Use when turning a The Journal of Politics (JOP) idea into a theoretically innovative argument — formal/game-theoretic, empirical, or normative. JOP explicitly prizes theoretical innovation across all subfields and counts pages, so the argument must be sharp, general, and economical. Builds the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits The Journal of Politics (JOP) and which category to target. JOP is a general-interest journal across all subfields that prizes theoretical innovation and methodological diversity, and it counts pages (Research Article <= 35, Short Article <= 10), not words. Helps frame the question and pick the category; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any The Journal of Politics (JOP) manuscript. Routes to the right JOP sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether a Research Article (<= 35 pages) or a Short Article (<= 10 pages) fits. JOP counts pages, not words, and makes acceptance contingent on replicability. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when building the theoretical mechanism and hypotheses for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript. Constructs the argument and develops hypotheses; it does not position the literature or run estimation.

Use when scoping or pressure-testing whether a research question is a genuine *strategy* question fit for the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). Decides fit and sharpens the question; it does not build the theory or run analysis.

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

Use for late-stage prose polish of a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — clarity, structure, and house style. Improves the writing; it does not change the theory, analysis, or contribution claim.

Use when results exist but the accounting contribution is thin or implicit for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — turning findings into an explicit statement of what the field now knows, with credible bounds and implications. Frames the contribution; it does not build the mechanism (tar-theory-development) or position against the literature (tar-literature-positioning).

Use when running and reporting the estimation for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — the estimator, fixed effects, standard-error clustering, robustness, and the data-authenticity / code-access documentation TAR requires. Executes and reports the analysis; it does not design identification (tar-methods) or frame the contribution (tar-contribution-framing).

Use when the front end of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript reads as gap-spotting or an incremental database extension — positioning the paper inside a live accounting conversation against the closest TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR work. Positions the contribution; it does not derive the mechanism (tar-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (tar-contribution-framing).

Use when the research design and identification strategy are the bottleneck for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — choosing the setting, shock, and design that credibly identify an accounting effect, or structuring an analytical model or experiment. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation and robustness (tar-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (tar-contribution-framing).

Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a The Accounting Review (TAR) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the editor and the (minimum two) reviewers across a multi-round developmental process, including identification, contribution, and data-authenticity demands. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (tar-review-process).

Use when understanding how The Accounting Review (TAR) review and decisions work, or when reading a TAR decision letter — the editor routing, double-blind two-reviewer model, decision types, and post-publication integrity rules. Explains and interprets the process; it does not draft the revision and response (tar-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — the Editorial Manager portal, double-blind anonymization, AI disclosure statement, ORCID and Conflict-of-Interest forms, data-authenticity files, the submission caps, and AAA/Chicago formatting. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (tar-rebuttal).

Use when building or cleaning the exhibits for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — descriptive, correlation, and regression tables, event-study and discontinuity figures, experimental cell means, and analytical-model exhibits in Chicago house style and within the page budget. Finalizes exhibits; it does not run the analysis (tar-data-analysis) or polish prose (tar-writing-style).

Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or predictions are the bottleneck for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — articulating why an accounting effect occurs and deriving testable predictions or model propositions. Builds the argument; it does not design identification (tar-methods) or run the estimation (tar-data-analysis).

Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — testing whether the question is contribution-driven, identifiable with accounting data, and a fit for TAR versus JAR/JAE or a specialist AAA section journal. Selects and scopes the question; it does not build the model (tar-theory-development) or design identification (tar-methods).

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

Use when polishing the prose of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — front-loading the result, writing for an accounting audience, enforcing Chicago Manual of Style house conventions, the 150-word abstract, and full author anonymization for double-blind review. Polishes prose and style; it does not fix a thin contribution (tar-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (tar-submission).

Use when building the central art-historical argument of an Art Bulletin article — the thesis, its stakes, and the chain from visual and documentary evidence to interpretation. The Art Bulletin rewards a fresh, well-warranted claim, not description. Shapes the argument; it does not generate evidence or do the looking.

Use when assembling and handling the non-visual evidence for an Art Bulletin article — objects, archives, primary documents, provenance, and technical findings — and citing them rigorously. Art-historical claims must rest on verifiable sources, not assertion. Guides evidence handling; it does not fabricate documents or attributions.

Use to plan and execute the illustration, copyright-permission, and reproduction-quality workflow for an Art Bulletin article — the distinctive, slow, author-funded task of art-historical publishing. The author secures and pays for rights and supplies high-resolution images. Manages the image workflow; it does not grant rights or waive fees.

Use to understand how The Art Bulletin evaluates a submission — double-blind peer review, what referees and the editor look for in art-historical work, and the likely decision outcomes. Helps anticipate review; it does not contact editors or simulate a specific referee.

Use when revising an Art Bulletin manuscript after a decision and writing the response to referees — converting double-blind reviewers without diluting the art-historical contribution, while keeping anonymity and the image/permissions plan on track. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new evidence.

Use when situating an Art Bulletin article in the historiography and scholarly literature of art history. The Art Bulletin expects engagement with prior interpretation, methods, and debates across the field, not just the literature on one object. Positions the contribution; it does not do the looking or the archival work.

Use when organizing an Art Bulletin article so the argument unfolds clearly and the figures are integrated at the right moments within the ~16,000-word limit including endnotes. Art-historical exposition must move the reader through the objects, not around them. Shapes structure; it does not write the prose or do the analysis.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The Art Bulletin — double-blind anonymization, the required Word files (manuscript, abstract, illustrations, captions, cover sheet), word/abstract/illustration caps, Chicago formatting, and the permissions status. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when deciding whether an art-history project fits The Art Bulletin and how to frame its contribution. The Art Bulletin is the discipline's leading generalist journal across all periods and regions, so the test is a significant art-historical contribution, not a local description. Helps frame the question; it does not do the research.

Use when performing the close visual and formal analysis that anchors an Art Bulletin article — describing and interpreting composition, form, medium, facture, scale, and viewing conditions of specific works, tied to numbered figures. Close looking is the discipline's core method. Guides the analysis; it does not invent what is not in the object.

Use as the entry point for any The Art Bulletin manuscript in art history. Routes to the right Art Bulletin sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle, with early attention to the image-and-permissions workload that art-historical publishing requires. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when polishing prose and formatting citations for an Art Bulletin article to The Chicago Manual of Style — endnotes (not author-date), full credit-line captions, and consistent CAA-style formatting. Art-historical writing must be precise about objects and rigorous in its notes. Handles style and citation; it does not do the analysis.

Use when sharpening an EctJ contribution into a compact leading-case claim with applied value, rather than a generic econometrics-methods contribution.

Use when designing or auditing EctJ Monte Carlo simulations, empirical applications, estimator comparisons, robustness checks, computation, seeds, and applied-value evidence.

Use when stress-testing the identification, assumptions, asymptotics, regularity conditions, proofs, and leading-case theory in a The Econometrics Journal submission.

Use when positioning an EctJ paper against econometric theory, applied econometrics, statistics, machine learning, and field-economics literatures while keeping the leading-case contribution compact.

Use when drafting a The Econometrics Journal response letter and revision plan after a referee report, especially for assumptions, proofs, Monte Carlo evidence, empirical application, 20-page compression, resubmission timing, and replication-package conditions.

Use when preparing The Econometrics Journal replication files, README, software versions, data documentation, seeds, proprietary-data exemptions, and OUP Supporting Information package after conditional acceptance or before submission risk review.

Use when interpreting or planning around The Econometrics Journal's one-week editorial screen, editor assignment, three-month decision target, resubmission window, conformance rejection, and replication checks.

Use when running the final The Econometrics Journal pre-submission check for Editorial Express, RES/OUP template compliance, 20-page printed-paper norm, 150-word summary, empirical application, proofs placement, submission fee, cover letter, and replication-policy disclosure.

Use when compressing EctJ tables, figures, Monte Carlo displays, empirical-application exhibits, theorem summaries, and appendix references under a roughly 20-page printed-paper constraint.

Use when deciding whether an econometrics paper fits The Econometrics Journal's leading-case, applied-value bar rather than Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Quantitative Economics, Review of Economics and Statistics, or a field journal.

Use when sequencing a The Econometrics Journal manuscript from venue fit through leading-case framing, asymptotic identification, Monte Carlo, empirical application, 20-page compression, submission, review, replication package, and rebuttal.

Use when revising an EctJ manuscript for compact RES/OUP style, 150-word summary, roughly 20-page printed-paper discipline, theorem readability, applied-value clarity, and template-compliant prose.