Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when running and reporting the analysis for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial statistics and modeling, remote-sensing accuracy, or qualitative coding and interpretation. Sets analysis and reporting norms across the four areas; it does not choose the design.

Use when positioning an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript in the literature — engaging geographic scholarship across the relevant area and the cross-cutting debates Annals readers expect. Frames the gap and the conversation; it does not design the study.

Use when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and 1-3 referees across the journal's four areas. Structures the response and revisions; it does not fabricate results.

Use when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and physical-environmental methods, qualitative human-geography inference, or nature-society mixed methods. The Annals judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by area, 1-3 referees (one being the editor or designate), decision categories, and what desk-rejects a paper. Sets expectations; it does not write the paper or the response letter.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Annals of the American Association of Geographers via ScholarOne Manuscripts — area/article-type selection, double-anonymous preparation, the 11,000-word inclusive cap, Chicago style, keywords, ORCID, and declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building maps, figures, and tables for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript. The Annals has a dedicated Cartography Editor and Graphics Guidelines; maps are held to cartographic standards, not just plotted. Improves exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the conceptual contribution of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — turning a finding into a geographic argument grounded in geographic theory (place, scale, space-time, environment-society, spatial process). Sharpens the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a topic fits the Annals of the American Association of Geographers and which of its four areas to target. Tests geographic significance and area fit; it does not design the study or write the paper.

Use when handling data documentation, sharing, and spatial-data ethics for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — provenance (sources, projections, processing), reproducibility, and geoprivacy / human-subjects protection. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state a verification gate the policy does not impose.

Use when starting or navigating any Annals of the American Association of Geographers (Annals of the AAG) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which of the journal's four areas (plus the cross-disciplinary track) the paper targets. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — Chicago Manual of Style (author-date), the 11,000-word inclusive cap, the 3-5 italicized keywords, and writing that reads as geography for a broad disciplinary audience. Polishes prose and format; it does not generate findings.

Use when working with the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee and production team — negotiating the commissioned scope, anticipating what review referees evaluate, and the author–editor relationship on an invited article. Plans the interaction; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or draft the response letter (arecon-revision).

Use when appraising the credibility of the primary studies an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review synthesizes, and when calibrating comprehensiveness, balance, and fair treatment of competing views. Weighs evidence and audits even-handedness; it does not design the spine (arecon-organizing-framework) or run your own identification.

Use when systematically gathering, reading, and synthesizing a body of economic research for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — coverage discipline and avoiding citation gaps. Builds the evidence corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the analytical spine (arecon-organizing-framework) or appraise study credibility (arecon-evidence-standards).

Use when imposing an analytical structure or taxonomy on a literature for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — the "spine" that turns a reading list into an argument about the field. Designs the framework; it does not gather the literature (arecon-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence and balance (arecon-evidence-standards).

Use when getting a review topic in front of the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee or shaping an accepted invitation — the commissioned/invited intake route, how to suggest a topic, and what a Committee-ready pitch contains. Frames the commission; it does not gather the literature (arecon-literature-synthesis) or run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee review cycle on an invited article — what happens after delivery, who reviews, the accuracy/rigor/balance bar, and the annual-volume timeline. Sets expectations; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or draft the response letter (arecon-revision).

Use when responding to Editorial Committee and referee feedback on an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — coverage gaps, balance/accuracy complaints, framework/structure asks, and accessibility. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (arecon-organizing-framework).

Use when running the final delivery preflight for a commissioned Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review via the Annual Reviews production system — disclosure statements, reference/format compliance, figure permissions, and the transparency/reproducibility of any meta-analysis the review itself contains. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building exhibits for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — summary "who-found-what" tables, the conceptual/framework figure, and meta-evidence exhibits that synthesize across studies. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an ARE review reports no new estimates of its own).

Use when judging whether a literature is an Annual Review of Economics (ARE)-scale review topic — mature, important, and genuinely in need of an authoritative, accessible synthesis — and framing the review's animating question. Decides fit; it does not gather the literature (arecon-literature-synthesis).

Use when deciding which arecon-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing an invited review article from topic through revision for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when revising an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review for the ARE voice — authoritative, accessible to economists outside the subfield, signposted, with a strong opening, a forward-looking close, and a survey-style abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (arecon-organizing-framework) or appraise evidence (arecon-evidence-standards).

Use when checking that an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review covers the literature even-handedly — across labs, paradigms, and rival theories — weighs evidence by credibility, and avoids self-promotion. Audits coverage and fairness; it does not build the search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework).

Use when managing scope, length, deadlines, and the production relationship with the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor and Annual Reviews production team. Handles the editorial/production process; it does not get the initial invitation (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or run the final file preflight (arpsych-submission).

Use when systematically gathering, reading, and structuring the literature for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so coverage is comprehensive and current. Builds the evidence base; it does not design the analytical spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or judge balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when imposing an analytical structure or taxonomy on a psychology literature for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review — the "spine" that turns a reading list into an argument about the field. Designs the framework; it does not gather the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or judge coverage and balance (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when getting a topic in front of the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editorial Committee, suggesting a topic/author, or shaping an accepted invitation into an agreed scope. Handles the commissioning relationship; it does not test topic maturity (arpsych-topic-selection) or read the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).

Use when responding to the Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) Editor's or Committee's peer-review letter on a delivered review, or to copyediting/proof queries. Handles the post-delivery revision loop; it does not run the pre-delivery preflight (arpsych-submission) or re-audit balance from scratch (arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when running the final delivery preflight for a commissioned Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review via the Annual Reviews production system — disclosures, reference/format compliance, figure permissions, length, and the transparency of any embedded meta-analysis. Final checks; it does not draft content or handle the post-review revision (arpsych-revision).

Use when designing the summary tables and conceptual figures for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review — the who-found-what tables and the one framework diagram that carries the spine. Designs exhibits; it does not design the spine itself (arpsych-organizing-framework) or run a meta-analysis (arpsych-transparency-and-reproducibility).

Use when judging whether a psychology topic is mature, important, and synthesis-ready enough to warrant an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Tests topic fit; it does not pitch the topic to the Committee (arpsych-proposal-and-commissioning) or gather the literature (arpsych-literature-synthesis).

Use when documenting the literature search and making any embedded meta-analysis reproducible for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review. Covers search transparency, meta-analytic rigor, and open materials; it does not run the narrative search (arpsych-literature-synthesis) or design exhibits (arpsych-tables-figures).

Use when deciding which arpsych-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing an invited review article from topic through revision for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when drafting or polishing prose for an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych) review so it lands the authoritative-yet-accessible house voice for a broad psychology readership. Shapes voice, abstract, and intro; it does not design the spine (arpsych-organizing-framework) or run final checks (arpsych-submission).

Use when calibrating completeness vs. selectivity and ensuring fairness across theoretical schools, methods, authors, and debates in an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review — including not over-promoting the author's own work. Audits coverage and even-handedness; it does not design the framework (arsoc-organizing-framework) or write prose (arsoc-writing-style).

Use when working with the Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) Editorial Committee and Annual Reviews production team — negotiating the commissioned scope, anticipating what review referees evaluate, and the annual-volume timeline. Plans the interaction; it does not run the delivery preflight (arsoc-submission) or draft the response letter (arsoc-revision).

Use when systematically gathering, reading, and synthesizing a large body of sociological research for an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review — coverage discipline and avoiding citation gaps across theoretical traditions. Builds the evidence corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the analytical spine (arsoc-organizing-framework) or write prose (arsoc-writing-style).

Use when imposing an analytical structure or taxonomy on a sociology literature for an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review — the "spine" that turns a reading list into an argument about the subfield. Designs the framework; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or judge balance (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when getting a review topic in front of the Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) Editorial Committee or shaping an accepted invitation — the invited/commissioning intake route, how to suggest a topic, and what a Committee-ready pitch contains. Frames the commission; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or run the delivery preflight (arsoc-submission).

Use when responding to Editorial Committee and referee feedback on an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review — coverage gaps, balance/accuracy complaints, framework/structure asks, and accessibility. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does not run the delivery preflight (arsoc-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (arsoc-organizing-framework).

Use when running the final delivery preflight for a commissioned Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review via the Annual Reviews production system — disclosure statements, reference/format compliance, figure permissions, and the transparency of the coverage account or any meta-analysis the review contains. Final checks; it does not draft content or handle the response letter (arsoc-revision).

Use when building exhibits for an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review — summary "who-found-what" tables, the conceptual/framework figure, and meta-evidence exhibits that synthesize across studies. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an ARSoc review reports no new estimates of its own) or write prose (arsoc-writing-style).

Use when judging whether a sociology literature is an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc)-scale review topic — mature, broadly important, and genuinely in need of an authoritative cross-subfield synthesis — and framing the review's animating question. Decides fit; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or pitch the Committee (arsoc-proposal-and-commissioning).

Use when documenting the coverage account of an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review and the transparency obligations of any systematic-review search or meta-analysis the review itself contains. Builds the search/selection record and the reproducibility plan; it does not gather the literature (arsoc-literature-synthesis) or appraise individual studies' designs (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when deciding which arsoc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing an invited review article from topic through revision for an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when revising an Annual Review of Sociology (ARSoc) review for the ARSoc voice — authoritative, accessible to sociologists outside the subfield, signposted, with a strong opening and a forward-looking research-agenda close, and a survey-style abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (arsoc-organizing-framework) or audit balance (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution of wide, cross-subfield, international interest. BJPS readers span subfields and countries, so the paper must engage the literatures they expect and avoid the desk-screen trap of looking parochial. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.