Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when revising a Communication Research (CR) manuscript after a revise-and-resubmit. CR requires two independent reviews to advance, so the hard problem is satisfying two quantitatively demanding referees — often on measurement, mediation, and confounds — inside the 45-page limit. Plans the revision and response memo; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Communication Research (CR) manuscript — experiments (lab/online), panel surveys, and content analysis with intercoder reliability. CR is quantitative and demanding about identification, measurement, and confound control. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how Communication Research (CR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymized review, editorial screening for quantitative/theory fit, external review, and the requirement that two independent positive reviews back a Revise or Accept decision. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Communication Research (CR) via SAGE Track (ScholarOne) — double-anonymized preparation, the 45-page limit, APA reporting, the data-availability statement, ORCID, and declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Communication Research (CR) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and formatted to APA. CR is quantitative, so exhibits must show effect sizes and uncertainty, not just stars. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument and hypotheses of a Communication Research (CR) manuscript into a testable, mechanism-level contribution. CR rewards explicit constructs, a stated communication process, and numbered hypotheses with mediation/moderation, not a bare effect. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a communication project fits Communication Research (CR) and is shaped as quantitative, theory-testing social science. CR rewards a clear communication-science question with a testable mechanism, not platform novelty or description. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use when preparing the transparency, open-science, and reproducibility materials for a Communication Research (CR) manuscript — data-availability statement, deposited data/code/materials, preregistration, and the restricted-data path. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use as the entry point for any Communication Research (CR) manuscript. Routes to the right CR sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and study type (experiment, survey/panel, or content analysis). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Communication Research (CR) manuscript so it reads as cumulative social science, follows APA style, and fits the limits (manuscript no more than 45 double-spaced pages inclusive of references). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when running and reporting the analyses for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript — estimation, uncertainty, robustness, and multi-method triangulation on comparative data. Sets analysis norms; it does not choose the identification strategy (see cps-research-design).

Use when positioning a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript against the comparative-politics literature and the rival explanations it must beat. Sharpens the gap and the engaged debate; it does not build the theory or design the study.

Use when responding to a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) revise-and-resubmit decision — structuring the response letter to multiple anonymous reviewers and the editor. Plans the revision and response; it does not fabricate results or relitigate the decision.

Use when defending the research design of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript — cross-national/panel identification, case-based comparison and process tracing, experiments, or multi-method designs. CPS prizes comparative leverage. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal.

Use when preparing the final Comparative Political Studies (CPS) submission package for SAGE Track (ScholarOne) — anonymization, word count, abstract, ORCID, title page, and data availability statement. Runs the submission preflight; it does not draft the manuscript.

Use when designing tables and figures for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so each exhibit is self-contained, comparative-legible, and SAGE-ready. Improves the exhibits; it does not run the analysis or set the data policy.

Use when building or sharpening the theoretical argument of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so it yields portable, testable comparative implications. Builds the mechanism and its observable implications; it does not run the empirics.

Use when deciding whether a research question fits Comparative Political Studies (CPS) and how to frame its comparative contribution. Tests comparative leverage and travel; it does not design the study or write the paper.

Use when preparing the replication and transparency materials for a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript. Quantitative papers cannot be finally accepted until replication materials are deposited at the CPS Dataverse; a data availability statement is required. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use when starting or navigating any Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript and you need the right next sub-skill, chosen by lifecycle stage and whether the paper makes a genuinely comparative claim across countries or over time. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript so it reaches comparativists, fits the 11,000-word limit, and follows CPS house formatting. Improves writing and formatting; it does not change the analysis.

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 处理代码与数据可用性时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，核验中未见公开的独立 artifact 徽章评审制度(待核实)，因此本技能重点讲清"本刊现状 + 作者应做法"：即便没有单独的 artifact 评审，如何主动提供可复现的代码与数据链接、可用性声明、校验和与许可，让单盲外审更信任你的工作，并为录用后补充材料做准备。适用于希望以开放代码与数据增强稿件可信度、又需要准确了解本刊无独立徽章制度这一现状的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 撰写审稿意见答复(response letter)与修回说明时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，单盲审稿、期刊式多轮修回(小修/大修)。技能帮助逐条回应外审与编辑意见、区分小修与大修策略、在正文标注改动位置、礼貌而有据地处理分歧、组织补充实验的呈现，并给出中文答复信的标准结构与模板。适用于收到修回通知后系统化准备答复与修改稿、争取下一轮通过的场景。

在《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 稿件录用后做定稿、校样(清样)与出版排期时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，见刊周期约 13 个月(待核实)。技能覆盖录用后的清稿定稿、中英文摘要与关键词终校、参考文献 GB/T 7714 与图表终检、版面费缴纳(第一作者 CCF 会员 8.5 折)、著作权与版权协议、校样核对与勘误、出版与排期沟通。适用于把录用稿打磨成可付印终稿、避免校样阶段出错的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 设计与呈现实验章节时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，单盲审稿。技能帮助以研究问题(RQ)驱动组织实验、选择公平且有代表性的基线、规范数据集与评价指标、报告统计显著性与方差、设计消融与敏感性分析、给出中英文题注的图表，并覆盖不同栏目(AI/网络/信息安全/数据库/系统等)的证据惯例。适用于把实证证据搭到能通过本刊外审、支撑摘要中量化结论的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 撰写相关工作章节或组织文献综述时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，覆盖面广且综述活跃、鼓励综述投稿。技能帮助以 delta(增量) 优先的方式组织相关工作、确立创新性，并针对本刊的综述型稿件给出分类框架、批判性比较与趋势展望的写法；同时规范中外文献引用与 GB/T 7714 著录。适用于研究长文的相关工作章节，以及面向本刊专题/综述栏目的综述稿组织的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 提升实验可复现性与可重复性时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，单盲审稿，未见独立 artifact 徽章制度(待核实)，故复现工作主要服务于让外审专家更快确认方法可信。技能覆盖环境/依赖/随机种子/数据划分固定、数据泄漏与污染防范、复现包结构、外链数据与校验和、可复现性自查清单。适用于让稿件的主结果可被他人从原始数据一键复现、经得起外审追问的场景。

在需要理解《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 审稿流程与各环节作者杠杆时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，采用单盲审稿制(作者不知审稿人、审稿人知作者)。技能建模编辑初审→专家外审→复审退修→主编终审→修回的流程，说明各环节判据、可能结果(录用/小修/大修/退稿)、时间预期(具体周期待核实)与作者在每一步能做什么。适用于投稿后判断稿件所处阶段、评估修回策略、管理预期的场景。

在向《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 正式提交稿件前做投稿就绪审计时调用。覆盖官网 www.jsjkx.com "作者投稿"在线系统的唯一投稿通道、稿件六件套(题名/中英文摘要/中英文关键词/中图分类号/正文/GB-T 7714 参考文献)、栏目与专题(专栏)归属选择、单盲审稿下的署名与利益冲突声明、学术不端查重、第一作者 CCF 会员版面费 8.5 折、建议不少于 8000 字等要点，并在提交前做退稿风险分诊。适用于把一份计算机全学科的中文稿件打磨到符合本刊体例与外审门槛的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 组织正文与附录/补充材料/多媒体附件的取舍时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)。技能帮助按"决定性"划分正文与附录：核心 RQ 证据留正文，完整超参表、额外数据集、证明细节、扩展实验、算法伪代码、代码与数据链接等放附录或补充材料；并规范补充材料的引用、命名与可访问性，兼顾本刊长文与综述的篇幅特点。适用于稿件内容多、需决定哪些进正文哪些进附录以保证正文可读性与外审效率的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 选题定位、判断稿件是否契合本刊时调用。本刊是重庆西南信息有限公司主办、创刊 1974 年的计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，覆盖面广、发文量大、专题(专栏)与综述活跃。技能帮助判断选题属于哪个栏目(理论/体系结构/软件/数据库/AI/网络/信息安全/图形多媒体/交叉前沿)、是否对接正在征稿的专题、稿件类型(研究长文/综述/应用)如何选择，以及与《计算机学报》《软件学报》等兄弟刊的分工。适用于动笔前确定选题与投稿定位的场景。

在需要《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 从选题到见刊的全流程时间线与技能编排时调用。本刊是计算机全学科中文综合月刊(CCF 会刊、B 类、T2 级)，单盲审稿、期刊式多轮修回，见刊周期约 13 个月(待核实)。技能把 12 个 csj-* 技能串成一条端到端流水线：选题定位→写作体例→相关工作→实验→可复现/补充/可用性→投稿→审稿→修回→定稿，标明每阶段产出、依赖顺序与关口检查。适用于统筹整段投稿旅程、决定下一步该调用哪个技能的场景。

在为《计算机科学》(Computer Science, JSJKX) 撰写或审校中文稿件体例时调用。覆盖本刊要求的报道性中文摘要与英文摘要(Abstract)、中英文关键词、中英文题名、中图分类号(TP 类)、参考文献 GB/T 7714-2015 顺序编码制(正文上标、文后按序编号、中文文献中英文对照)、量与单位用法定计量单位、图表中英文题注、公式排版与语言风格。适用于把计算机全学科的中文稿件(研究长文或综述)打磨到符合本刊中文科技写作规范、可通过编辑初审的场景。

Use when executing and reporting the analysis/interpretation for a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript so it survives expert review and the published CA✩ Comments — disciplined ethnographic/qualitative inference, honest interpretation, and (for biological/archaeological work) sound quantitative analysis. Guides analysis and interpretation norms; it does not fabricate evidence or quotations.

Use when positioning a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript against the literature so it reads as an all-fields, agenda-setting contribution that can withstand the CA✩ comment-and-reply Treatment. CA readers and commentators span every subfield and many world traditions, so the paper must engage the conversations they expect and decenter a US/Anglophone-only canon. Stakes the contribution and citational politics; it does not write the lit review.

Use when responding to a Current Anthropology (CA) decision OR writing the author's Reply to the published CA✩ Comments. CA has two distinct response tasks — a normal revise-and-resubmit letter to referees/editor before acceptance, and the public, signed Reply to invited commentators printed alongside an accepted Major Article. Structures both; it does not fabricate new evidence.

Use when defending the research design of a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript — fieldwork and participant observation, interview and archival design for ethnographic/qualitative work, material/contextual analysis for archaeology, and appropriate lab/quantitative design for biological anthropology. CA judges each mode on its own terms with reflexivity, and the design must survive published CA✩ Comments. Strengthens the design; it does not write code or run fieldwork.

Use when you need to understand how Current Anthropology (CA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, peer review, and the distinctive CA✩ Treatment in which an accepted Major Article is sent to invited commentators whose signed Comments are published alongside it, followed by the author's Reply. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive both review and public commentary; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Current Anthropology (CA) via Editorial Manager — article-type selection, word/abstract caps, file formats (.doc/.rtf text + separate TIFF/EPS figures), Chicago author-date in final files, ethics statement, figure permissions, and the Wenner-Gren copyright assignment. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building exhibits for a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript — photographs, maps, site plans, artifact images, kinship diagrams, transcripts, and evidence tables — so they are self-contained, ethically cleared (consent, permissions, heritage), within CA's figure caps, and submitted in the right file formats. Designs exhibits; it does not run analysis or clear permissions for you.

Use when building the conceptual/theoretical argument of a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript into an agenda-setting, all-fields contribution that can anchor the CA✩ comment-and-reply Treatment — whether the work is ethnographic, archaeological, biological, or linguistic. CA rewards a portable, debatable concept and reflexive argument over a bare finding or thick description alone. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses or write fieldnotes.

Use when deciding whether an anthropology project fits Current Anthropology (CA) and which article type to target. CA is the transnational, all-fields Wenner-Gren journal whose Major Articles receive the CA✩ comment-and-reply Treatment, so the test is field-shaping significance worth international debate, not single-subfield novelty. Helps frame the question and pick an article type; it does not collect data or conduct fieldwork.

Use when handling research ethics, consent, community accountability, and data/transparency for a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript — informed consent, anonymization, protection of vulnerable interlocutors, heritage and repatriation obligations, and what (and what NOT) to share, plus the Wenner-Gren copyright assignment. At CA this is an ethics-and-accountability skill; protecting people can override sharing data. Plans the ethics and transparency; it does not grant waivers.

Use when starting or navigating any Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript as the entry point. Routes to the right CA sub-skill based on lifecycle stage, subfield (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), and article type (Major Article under the CA✩ Treatment, Report, Forum, Discussion/Comment). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript so it reads across all subfields for a worldwide audience, follows CA house style (free-format accepted; final files use Chicago author-date), fits the article-type word caps (Major Article 6,000–10,000 words; Report 3,000–5,000; abstract ≤ 200 words), and uses clear, jargon-light, inclusive language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when packaging the code, benchmarks, and flows behind an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript into a credible, reusable artifact — given that DAC has historically run no formal artifact-evaluation or badge-issuing track (verify per cycle), so the goal is reviewer credibility and community reuse via open EDA flows and DOI-archived releases, not an ACM badge.

Use when handling reviewer feedback for an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript — writing a concise, evidence-first rebuttal IF the cycle runs an author-response period (verify; DAC has historically not), and otherwise converting DAC reviews into a targeted response-to-reviewers when rerouting a rejected paper to ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC, or a journal.

Use when preparing the final ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research-Manuscript camera-ready after acceptance, covering de-anonymization, restoring author/affiliation/acknowledgement/funding blocks, the ACM copyright form and rights stamp, the April proceedings deadline, ACM Digital Library metadata and archival-flow checks, and the still-fixed 6+1 page budget.

Use when designing or auditing the empirical evaluation of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript, covering standard EDA benchmark suites (ISPD, EPFL, ISCAS/ITC, TAU, CircuitNet, OpenROAD flows), fair state-of-the-art baselines, QoR/PPA reporting with runtime, per-benchmark honesty, ablations that isolate the mechanism, and contamination-aware ML-for-EDA evaluation.