Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Operations Research (OR) manuscript — INFORMS Author Portal/ScholarOne, area selection, recommending Associate Editors and reviewers, soft double-anonymous anonymization, the mandatory contribution statement, page-tier limits, and the code/data deposit plan. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (ors-rebuttal).

Use when building the exhibits for an Operations Research (OR) manuscript — theorem/assumption layout, comparison tables against prior work, computational-results tables, and convergence/scaling plots in INFORMS house style. Lays out exhibits; it does not generate the numbers (ors-data-analysis) or prove the results (ors-methods).

Use when formulating the model and stating results for an Operations Research (OR) manuscript — defining the optimization/stochastic/simulation model, assumptions, and the theorems, propositions, and lemmas that carry the contribution. Builds the mathematical object and its claimed results; it does not prove them in detail (ors-methods) or run the computational study (ors-data-analysis).

Use when deciding whether a problem is a fit for Operations Research (OR) and which of its editorial areas it belongs to — testing for a genuine OR/MS methodological contribution and picking the correct area before formulating. Scopes and routes the problem; it does not build the model (ors-theory-development) or position it in the literature (ors-literature-positioning).

Use as the router for an Operations Research (OR) manuscript — given where you are in the OR/MS modeling-to-submission lifecycle, it names the next ors-* skill to invoke. Routes; it does not itself formulate models (ors-theory-development), prove results (ors-methods), or run computational studies (ors-data-analysis).

Use when polishing the prose and notation of an Operations Research (OR) manuscript — enforcing the equation-free introduction, the text-only abstract under 200 words, clean theorem-proof exposition, and INFORMS author-year house style. Polishes language and house style; it does not formulate the model (ors-theory-development) or run the submission preflight (ors-submission).

Use when drafting the mandatory <500-word contribution statement and the discussion section for an Organization Science manuscript — articulating the overall contribution to organization research from any of the journal's accepted sources, not novelty for its own sake. This is the single most decisive skill for desk-survival at this venue.

Use when analyzing and reporting results for an Organization Science manuscript across its eclectic methods — establishing trustworthiness for qualitative work, the right estimator for quantitative/multilevel data, transparency for simulation/formal models, and mechanism-supported inference where causal identification is impossible. Executes and reports the analysis; it does not design the study (orgsci-methods) or frame the contribution (orgsci-contribution-framing).

Use when positioning an Organization Science manuscript in the literature — identifying the organization-theory conversation it joins, problematizing rather than gap-spotting, and integrating across the disciplines (organization theory, strategy, sociology, economics, psychology) the journal draws on.

Use when choosing and defending the research design for an Organization Science manuscript — matching one of the journal's eclectic methods (qualitative/inductive, quantitative/archival, experimental, computational/simulation, formal-analytical) to the question and level of analysis, and justifying design without requiring causal identification.

Use after an Organization Science R&R to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response letter, following the journal's codified author-response norms — verbatim italic quoting of each comment, no duplicated responses across reviewers, and a non-combative, non-effusive tone, while prioritizing the autonomous senior editor's concerns.

Use when you want to understand how Organization Science review and decisions work before or after submitting — the decentralized senior-editor model with strong SE autonomy, the conflict-of-interest routing cascade, double-anonymous reviewing, and how to read a decision letter at this venue.

Use when preparing the final Organization Science submission package — the ScholarOne preflight covering the mandatory <500-word contribution statement, double-anonymous anonymization, the all-inclusive ~50-page length norm, the separate standalone anonymized appendix, abstract and ORCID requirements, INFORMS formatting, and the optional post-acceptance open-access option.

Use when building the exhibits for an Organization Science manuscript — data-structure diagrams and process models for qualitative work, correlation/result tables and interaction plots for quantitative work, and simulation/network figures, all in INFORMS house style with self-explanatory titles and notes.

Use when building or sharpening the theory for an Organization Science manuscript — articulating the organizational mechanism, bridging micro-macro levels, and deciding between a priori deductive theorizing and inductive grounded theory building. Develops the theory; it does not frame the contribution statement (orgsci-contribution-framing) or run the analysis (orgsci-data-analysis).

Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for an Organization Science manuscript — testing whether it is a theory-driven question about organizations spanning micro to macro, and whether Organization Science (rather than ASQ, AMJ, Management Science, or a field journal) is the right venue.

Use when deciding which orgsci-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Organization Science manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing the prose of an Organization Science manuscript — front-loading the organizational argument and contribution, writing for an interdisciplinary micro-to-macro audience, and conforming to INFORMS author-date house style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled.

Use when building the argument of a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay into a significant contribution to literary and language studies. PMLA rewards a clear, consequential claim whose implications are drawn out — not a description or a reading without stakes. Structures the argument; it does not perform the close reading or invent evidence.

Use when formatting a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay in MLA style — in-text parenthetical citations keyed to a Works Cited list built from the MLA Handbook's template of core elements, plus quotation, translation, and discursive-note conventions. PMLA requires the most recent MLA Handbook. Handles citation mechanics; it does not write the argument.

Use to understand how PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) evaluates an essay — anonymous (blind) review with at least two reviewers, the Editorial Board's final decision, the Advisory Committee's reports, MLA-membership eligibility, and how anonymity is maintained. Sets expectations and shapes the essay to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when revising a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay after a decision and writing the response to readers' reports. PMLA essays receive at least two substantive reports and the Editorial Board decides, so the revision must answer every reader while protecting the argument and keeping the manuscript anonymous. Structures the revision and response; it does not fabricate evidence.

Use when positioning a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay within the critical conversation so it reads as a significant contribution to literary and language studies. PMLA readers span periods, languages, and schools, so the essay must engage the criticism they expect and stake a clear intervention. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature survey.

Use when organizing a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay so the argument unfolds clearly within the 6,000–9,000-word range. PMLA prizes a concise, readable presentation that draws out implications; the structure must carry a generalist reader through close reading and argument. Shapes the architecture; it does not write the prose.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) via the ScholarOne site — venue selection, MLA-membership eligibility, anonymous preparation, word range, MLA style, cover sheet, and AI-content disclosure. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when marshalling textual evidence and close reading as the evidence base of a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay. In literary studies the text is the data — claims are earned through careful reading of language, form, and context, quoted accurately and cited in MLA style. Strengthens the reading; it does not run analyses or invent passages.

Use when choosing and deploying a theoretical or methodological frame in a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay. PMLA welcomes all theoretical perspectives but expects theory to illuminate texts, not to substitute for reading. Also the home for Theories and Methodologies and The Changing Profession features. Frames the method; it does not perform the close reading.

Use when deciding whether a literary or language-studies project fits PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) and which venue to target. PMLA is the discipline's generalist flagship, so the test is interest to scholars and teachers of language and literature broadly, not narrow specialist novelty. Helps frame the question; it does not gather sources.

Use as the entry point for any PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) manuscript. Routes to the right PMLA sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which venue fits — a regular blind-reviewed article or a special feature (Theories and Methodologies, The Changing Profession, Criticism in Translation, Little-known Documents). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay so it reads clearly for a broad membership of language and literature scholars. PMLA prizes a concise, readable presentation; the prose must carry sophisticated argument without jargon for its own sake. Tightens the writing; it does not invent content or handle citation mechanics.

Use to write the PNAS abstract — a single self-contained paragraph of ~250 words, quantified and accessible to a broad scientific audience. Distinguishes the abstract (what/how/found, for scientists) from the Significance Statement (why-it-matters, for everyone). Late-stage polish.

Use to convert references to PNAS's numbered citation style — cited in order of appearance, a numbered reference list, full author lists, abbreviated journal titles. Provides formats for article/book/chapter/dataset/preprint and an author-date → PNAS conversion table. Late-stage style pass.

Use to build PNAS's Data Availability Statement and deposition plan — mandatory deposition of data in an approved repository at submission, accession numbers/DOIs, public + archived code, and materials sharing. "Available on request" is not sufficient for primary data.

Use to finalize PNAS display items — column-width sizing (~9 / 11.4 / 18 cm), minimum font sizes, show-the-data with n and defined error bars, scale bars, colorblind-safe palettes, legend structure, image integrity, and color-mode notes. Enforces figure rigor before submission.

Use first, before any writing, to stress-test whether a result clears PNAS's bar — high quality and broad significance to a general scientific readership — and to make the realistic call between PNAS, Science/Nature, and a specialist field journal.

Use after PNAS reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Use to write the mandatory PNAS Significance Statement — ≤120 words, written so an educated reader outside the field (down to an undergraduate) understands why the work matters. Distinct from the abstract. The highest-value PNAS-specific artifact.

Use to enforce PNAS's statistics and reproducibility reporting — n and replication, test choice and assumptions, effect sizes with uncertainty, multiple-comparison control, randomization/blinding, sample-size justification, pre-registration where relevant, and reproducible code.

Use as the final preflight before submitting to PNAS — a complete checklist across significance, track, Significance Statement, abstract, classification + keywords, figures, statistics, data, references, and required files. Bundles a checklist and a PNAS cover-letter template. Emits GO/NO-GO.

Use to choose the PNAS submission track — Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) vs Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper). Covers eligibility, the editor/member role, the discontinued and legacy tracks, and how to pick. Unique to PNAS.

Use when deciding which pnas-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use to structure a PNAS main text and hold its length — Title, Significance Statement, Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion, in-text Materials and Methods, references — and to choose the required Classification (Biological/Physical/Social Sciences + minor subject) and keywords at submission.

Use when writing the cover letter for a Physical Review Letters submission, which must justify to APS editors why the work meets PRL's importance-and-broad-interest criteria. Drafts the editorial case; does not edit the manuscript itself.

Use when designing or auditing figures for a Physical Review Letters manuscript, where a few high-impact figures must carry the central result and count against the length limit. Designs figure strategy; does not run the analysis or write prose.

Use when a Physical Review Letters manuscript exceeds the strict deductible length limit, where figures, equations, and references all count against the budget. Triages what to cut, compress, or move to Supplemental Material; does not rewrite content from scratch.

Use when deciding what methodological detail belongs in a Physical Review Letters body versus Supplemental Material, so a physicist can trust the result without the Letter becoming a long paper. Partitions methods; does not design figures or run analysis.

Use when choosing suggested and opposed referees for a Physical Review Letters submission and pre-empting the objections APS referees are likely to raise. Plans referee handling; does not write the manuscript or the rebuttal.

Use when a Physical Review Letters result is correct but its central claim and broad significance are not yet sharp. Structures the one-claim narrative; does not run analysis or design figures.

Use when responding to Physical Review Letters referee reports or editor decisions — point-by-point reply, resubmission, and the APS appeal route. Structures the response and revision; does not redraft the science from scratch.

Use when deciding whether a physics result clears Physical Review Letters' importance-and-broad-interest gate, or whether it belongs in Physical Review A–E / PR Research. Diagnoses venue fit; does not write or frame the result.