Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when building the central argument of a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article. JAAR explicitly wants an essay that "has a point" — analysis with a contestable thesis, not description or survey. Structures the argument; it does not gather the sources.

Use when formatting citations and references for a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article. JAAR's distinctive rule is IN-TEXT author-date citations (NOT footnote citations) with an alphabetized year-keyed reference list; footnotes are reserved for substantive points. Handles reference apparatus; it does not write the argument.

Use to understand how the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) evaluates a manuscript — editor pre-screening for broad significance, double-blind review, a roughly 90% rejection rate, a months-long timeline, and a commissioned-only book-review section. Sets expectations and shapes the article to survive; it does not contact editors.

Use when revising a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article after a revise-and-resubmit and writing the response to readers' reports. Reviewers come from different traditions and methods, so the response must satisfy each on its own terms while protecting the article's argument and its broad significance. Plans the revision and response; it does not fabricate sources.

Use when positioning a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article in the scholarly conversation so it reads as a contribution to the study of religion broadly, not a footnote to one subfield. Stakes the intervention across traditions and methods; it does not write the literature review.

Use when handling the evidence base of a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article — primary texts, traditions, historical documents, material/visual sources, or ethnographic fieldwork. Plans rigorous, transparent source work for humanities scholarship in the study of religion; it does not run statistics.

Use when organizing a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article so a method-conscious argument unfolds clearly within the ~8,000-12,000-word range (including references and footnotes). Builds the essay's architecture; it does not generate content.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) via ScholarOne / Manuscript Central — anonymized main document plus separate title page, the broad-significance framing, length and abstract limits, in-text citation style, and house conventions. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when articulating the theory and method of a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article. JAAR prizes method-conscious, reflexive, non-confessional scholarship and explicitly publishes studies of the methodologies by which religion is explored. Sharpens the theoretical/methodological frame; it does not gather sources.

Use when deciding whether a project fits the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) and how to frame it. JAAR's bar is broad and fundamental interest to the study of religion across traditions and methods — a contribution only to one subfield will be returned for reframing before review. Frames the question; it does not do the research.

Use as the entry point for any Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) manuscript. Routes to the right JAAR sub-skill by lifecycle stage, and enforces the journal's gatekeeping demand up front — the article must speak to a question of broad and fundamental interest to the study of religion, not just a subfield. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article so it is clear, analytic, gender-neutral, and readable across the study of religion. Improves scholarly prose; it does not invent content. For reference formatting use jaar-citation-and-style.

Use when drafting the cover letter to the editor for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript — stating the advance, broad interest, and fit. Drafts the editor-facing pitch — it does not assess the underlying chemistry.

Use when building schemes, spectra, structures, and reaction/mechanism figures in ACS style for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Designs and audits graphics — it does not generate the underlying data.

Use when choosing between an Article and a Communication and meeting ACS format norms for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Decides format and trims to fit — it does not add new results.

Use when checking synthesis and characterization rigor for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript — purity, NMR/HRMS/IR/UV-vis, elemental analysis or HPLC, single-crystal X-ray/CCDC, and catalysis controls/mechanism/kinetics. Audits experimental rigor — it does not write narrative or polish prose.

Use when suggesting/excluding reviewers and pre-empting likely referee objections for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Plans the review-facing strategy — it does not run experiments or write the paper.

Use when the chemical advance and its significance are not yet sharp for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Shapes the narrative and claims — it does not generate new data or fix characterization gaps.

Use after a decision letter/referee reports arrive for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript, to plan experiments and draft the point-by-point response. Structures the revision and rebuttal — it does not fabricate data or guarantee acceptance.

Use when deciding whether a chemistry result belongs in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) versus a specialized ACS journal, and which JACS format fits. Judges fit and venue — it does not improve the chemistry itself.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript via ACS Paragon Plus — files, TOC graphic, SI, CIFs/CCDC, disclosures, and format. Runs the submission checklist — it does not improve the science or prose.

Use when assembling the Supporting Information for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript — complete procedures, full compound characterization, copies of key spectra, and crystallographic CIFs/CCDC numbers. Builds and audits the SI — it does not decide which experiments to run.

Use when deciding which jacs-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript from scope check through revision. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing prose to ACS house style and claim discipline for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Edits language, structure, and nomenclature — it does not add data or design figures.

Use to write The Lancet's structured abstract — ≤300 words under the exact headings Background, Methods, Findings, Interpretation, Funding — leading with the clinical question, reporting the primary outcome with effect size and 95% CI, citing the registration number, and naming the funder.

Use to satisfy The Lancet's clinical-ethics and research-integrity requirements — ethics-committee approval and informed consent under the Declaration of Helsinki, the Declaration of interests, ICMJE author contributions, the role-of-the-funding-source statement, the data-sharing statement, patient and public involvement, and SAGER sex/gender plus equity reporting.

Use to build and check The Lancet's clinical display items — the Table 1 baseline characteristics, Kaplan–Meier curves with numbers at risk, forest plots for subgroups/meta-analyses, the CONSORT/study-flow diagram, and maps for multi-country studies — all with confidence intervals shown.

Use first, before any writing, to stress-test whether a study clears The Lancet's bar — clinically or public-health important, globally relevant, and likely to change practice or policy, often with an equity lens. Decides The Lancet vs a Lancet family title vs another general medical journal.

Use after Lancet reviews arrive (including the statistical reviewer and the editor's letter) to triage the decision, answer statistical and clinical comments, and draft a point-by-point response that quotes the reviewer, gives evidence, quotes the revised manuscript text, and keeps causal language cautious. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Use to select and apply the correct EQUATOR reporting guideline for a Lancet manuscript — CONSORT for RCTs (with the mandatory flow diagram), STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews/meta-analyses, SPIRIT for protocols — and to attach the completed checklist and study-flow diagram.

Use to build The Lancet's signature Research in context panel — the three mandatory headed parts (Evidence before this study, Added value of this study, Implications of all the available evidence), grounded in a systematic literature search with stated databases, terms, and dates. Mandatory for original research Articles.

Use to enforce The Lancet's clinical-statistics reporting — confidence intervals over bare P values, a pre-specified primary analysis, intention-to-treat with per-protocol sensitivity, multiplicity control for secondary endpoints, cautious pre-specified subgroup analyses with interaction tests, missing-data handling, and absolute plus relative effects.

Use to lock study design and mandatory prospective registration for a Lancet clinical manuscript — trial registration before enrollment, protocol + statistical analysis plan, and design rigor (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, pre-specified endpoints, power, ITT). Covers observational design choices too.

Use as the final preflight before submitting to The Lancet — a complete checklist across importance, registration, reporting guideline + flow diagram, statistics, structured abstract, the Research in context panel, ethics/declarations/data-sharing, and required files. Bundles a checklist and a cover-letter template.

Use when deciding which lancet-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a clinical or global-health manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for The Lancet. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use to structure and hold the length of a Lancet Article main text — Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion (~3000–3500 words), the Research in context panel, a limited reference list (~30), and a cautious, globally minded Discussion that does not overstate.

Use when turning results or a built artifact into an explicit contribution for a MIS Quarterly manuscript — stating what new IS knowledge the paper produces (behavioral mechanism, design principles, economic effect, or organizational insight), why it matters for both IS theory and practice, and why it justifies its page budget. Frames the contribution; it does not run the analysis (misq-data-analysis).

Use when running and reporting the empirical core of a MIS Quarterly manuscript — measurement and structural models (PLS/CB-SEM) for behavioral IS, causal identification and robustness for economics-of-IS, artifact evaluation for design science, or trustworthiness for qualitative IS — and assembling the genre-appropriate transparency materials. Executes/reports the analysis; it does not design the study (misq-methods) or frame the contribution (misq-contribution-framing).

Use when positioning a MIS Quarterly manuscript inside the right information-systems conversation — engaging canonical IS work, showing the IT artifact is central, and distinguishing the paper from adjacent IS venues (ISR, JMIS, JAIS) and from the parent reference disciplines (management, economics, computer science).

Use when choosing and defending the research design for a MIS Quarterly manuscript — a behavioral survey/experiment, an economics-of-IS identification strategy, a design-science build-and-evaluate cycle, or an organizational/qualitative design. Matches the method to the IS claim and the manuscript category; it designs the study and hands estimation/evaluation to misq-data-analysis.

Use after a MIS Quarterly revision decision to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns (identification, validity/CMB, artifact evaluation, trustworthiness), updating the transparency materials, and keeping the revised manuscript within its page limit. Drafts the response after the manuscript is actually revised; interpret the decision first with misq-review-process.

Use to understand how MIS Quarterly's editorial process works and to read a decision letter — the double-anonymous model, the Senior-Editor/Associate-Editor routing where the SE owns the decision, what a major/minor revision versus reject signals, and what to expect across one or more revision rounds. Sets expectations and interprets decisions; the response itself is drafted with misq-rebuttal.

Use for the final pre-submission preflight of a MIS Quarterly manuscript — confirming the ScholarOne workflow, Word-file format, double-anonymous compliance, the correct manuscript category and its page limit, the pluralistic transparency commitment uploaded at Step 2, and the reviewer-service agreement. Verifies submission readiness; it does not polish prose (misq-writing-style) or interpret decisions (misq-review-process).

Use when designing the exhibits for a MIS Quarterly manuscript — measurement/correlation and structural-model tables for behavioral IS, regression and robustness tables for economics-of-IS, artifact architecture and evaluation exhibits for design science, and a Gioia-style data structure for qualitative work — all sized to fit MISQ's page limit, which counts tables and figures. Late-stage polish; do not run before the contribution and evaluation are settled.

Use when building the theoretical engine of a MIS Quarterly manuscript — a behavioral mechanism and hypotheses, a design theory and testable design propositions for a design-science artifact, an economic mechanism for an economics-of-IS study, or an organizational process theory. Adapts the form of "theory" to the paper's IS tradition; does not run the analysis (misq-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (misq-contribution-framing).

Use when shaping or stress-testing a research question for MIS Quarterly — confirming it is a genuine information-systems question, naming which of the four IS traditions (behavioral, design science, economics, organizational) it lives in, and choosing the matching manuscript category before any data are collected or any artifact is built.

Use when deciding which misq-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through revision for a MIS Quarterly (MISQ) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills, and it first helps you name which of the four IS research traditions (behavioral, design science, economics, organizational) your paper lives in.

Use when polishing the prose of a MIS Quarterly manuscript — front-loading the IS contribution, writing for an interdisciplinary IS audience that spans four traditions, applying APA 7th / MISQ Style Guide conventions (including MISQ's lead-with-the-information in-text citation style, heading format, and 5–10 keywords), and keeping the manuscript inside its page limit. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the contribution is unsettled.

Use when writing the explicit contribution statement for a Management Science (INFORMS) manuscript — turning an analytical result or empirical finding into a decision-relevant insight that travels across departments, and showing why it belongs in Management Science rather than a sister INFORMS journal. It frames the "so what"; it does not run the analysis (mgsci-data-analysis) or position the literature (mgsci-literature-positioning).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Management Science (INFORMS) manuscript — proving and numerically verifying analytical results, or estimating and validating empirical models (identification, robustness, inference) to the standard of the relevant Department, and preparing a Data-and-Code-Disclosure-ready replication package. It executes; it does not design the study (mgsci-methods) or frame the contribution (mgsci-contribution-framing).