Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when building the theoretical argument for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript — constructing an explicitly entrepreneurial mechanism (opportunity, effectuation, bricolage, identity, socioemotional wealth) and choosing the theorizing mode.

Use when deciding whether a question is entrepreneurship-central enough for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript, and whether ETP (vs.

Use when deciding which etp-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) submission.

Use when the prose, abstract, or introduction of an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript does not land the journal's theory-and-practice voice.

Use when preparing a EuroSys artifact for the sysartifacts-run evaluation — choosing among the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, timing the post-notification artifact submission, building for an evaluator on foreign hardware, and aiming at the Gilles Muller Best Artifact Award rather than a minimal pass.

Use when writing a EuroSys rebuttal or managing a one-shot revision — reading reviews against the three possible outcomes (accept, revise, reject), answering systems reviewers' measurement and design objections, and turning a revision offer's condition list into a resubmission plan for the next EuroSys deadline.

Use when converting an accepted EuroSys paper into its ACM proceedings version — flipping acmart out of review/anonymous mode, restoring authors and acknowledgments, completing ACM rights and metadata steps, attaching sysartifacts badges, and meeting the single camera-ready date that serves both the spring and fall cohorts.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a EuroSys paper — choosing workloads that earn the word realistic, tuning baselines beyond their defaults, decomposing end-to-end wins into per-mechanism gains, measuring overheads and worst cases, and sizing experiments to the claims the paper actually makes.

Use when positioning a EuroSys submission in the systems literature — mapping the SOSP/OSDI/NSDI/ATC/ASPLOS neighbor space plus EuroSys's own two-decade proceedings line, handling concurrent arXiv and workshop versions under double-blind rules, and declaring overlap with earlier submissions of the same work.

Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a EuroSys paper — recording hardware and software provenance for every number, taming performance variance with repeated runs and dispersion reporting, versioning workloads and traces, and writing an availability statement that survives both double-blind review and the sysartifacts AEC.

Use when reasoning about how EuroSys decides papers — the two independent yearly rounds feeding one April conference, HotCRP double-blind reviewing, the accept/revise/reject outcome triple, the same-season resubmission ban after rejection, and community structures like the Shadow PC that shape who reviews.

Use when auditing a EuroSys submission before a HotCRP upload — abstract registration versus full-paper gates, the 12-page technical-content budget with free references, the acmart sigplan review/anonymous template and text block, double-blind hygiene, and the CFP warning that formatting or anonymization violations are not reviewed.

Use when deciding what lives outside a EuroSys paper's 12 technical pages — free reference pages, whether the current round permits appendices or supplementary uploads, anonymized artifact repositories linked from the submission, and extended technical reports — without moving decision-critical evidence out of the reviewed pages.

Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and how the April slot and dual deadlines affect that call.

Use when planning a EuroSys campaign end to end — choosing between the spring and fall gates of an edition, backward-scheduling system building and evaluation from the abstract deadline, handling the notification-to-revision-to-resubmission pipeline, and landing camera-ready, artifacts, and April travel for the conference.

Use when drafting or revising EuroSys prose — building the problem-to-mechanism arc systems reviewers expect, budgeting the 12 technical pages across design and evaluation, writing figure-first evaluation sections, keeping claims measurement-scoped, and maintaining double-blind voice in the acmart sigplan format.

Use when the empirical causal-identification argument is the bottleneck for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript — DiD/event-study, IV, RDD, or experiment. Stress-tests the design to EER's general-interest credibility bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not build the theory model or the robustness battery.

Use when the contribution-vs-frontier claim is fuzzy, oversold, or under-cited for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript spanning any field of economics. Sharpens the gap and the marginal contribution; it does not fix identification or prose.

Use when a European Economic Review (EER) decision letter arrives (R&R or reject-with-appeal grounds) and a response strategy and letter are needed. Plans the revision and drafts the point-by-point response; it does not run new estimation or rewrite the whole paper.

Use when anticipating the objections a European Economic Review (EER) referee will raise — under single-anonymized review across any field — and pre-empting them before submission. Maps likely pushback to fixes; it does not draft the response letter (use eer-rebuttal after a decision).

Use when assembling the data and code deposit for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript under Elsevier's mandatory replication policy. Builds a reproducible package and README; it does not run the analysis or write the paper.

Use when a European Economic Review (EER) result must be shown to survive specification, sample, measurement, and inference changes — the robustness battery referees demand. Builds the stress tests and organizes them; it does not establish the core identification or write the prose.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the European Economic Review (EER) via Editorial Manager — submission fee, single-anonymized review, Elsevier format and house-style rules, declarations, and the data/replication policy. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building or revising exhibits for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript so they report standard errors, read cleanly, and follow Elsevier economics norms. Designs tables and figures; it does not run the estimation or write the surrounding prose.

Use when a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript needs a theoretical model built or tightened — a pure-theory result, a quantitative/structural macro model, or a conceptual frame disciplining an empirical paper. Sharpens the model's contribution, assumptions, and link to data; it does not run the empirical identification or robustness.

Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER) — general-interest across all of economics — rather than a field journal, JEEA, or The Economic Journal. Diagnoses fit and reframes for breadth; it does not build the identification or the model.

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

Use when revising prose for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript — the abstract, introduction arc, research highlights, and Elsevier house conventions. Makes the general-interest idea land; it does not establish identification, theory, or exhibits.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript so it survives expert double-blind review — correct multilevel and longitudinal modeling, honest uncertainty, robustness, and small-macro-N inference on comparative survey or register data. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to a comparative, theory-driven quantitative debate rather than a national note. Stakes the contribution in a European sociological debate and names the closest prior estimates; it does not write the literature review.

Use when writing the response to a European Sociological Review (ESR) revise-and-resubmit. ESR R&Rs typically demand substantial revision and reviewers focus on comparative design, measurement equivalence, and modeling, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript — comparative cross-national designs, panel/longitudinal and event-history designs, multilevel structures, and causal inference where feasible on harmonized survey or register data. ESR judges whether the design lets the comparison or panel identify the mechanism. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when you need to understand how the European Sociological Review (ESR) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind peer review, what comparative quantitative reviewers weigh, decision categories, and the ethics rules (anonymity, no simultaneous submission). Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the European Sociological Review (ESR) via ScholarOne Manuscripts — anonymous-manuscript preparation, word/abstract caps, OUP author-date style, the Data Availability Statement, and replication-package readiness. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript. ESR excludes tables and figures from the ~8,000-word count but expects them to be clear, self-contained, and to carry magnitude and uncertainty for a comparative quantitative readership. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript into a portable mechanism with testable hypotheses — typically a macro–micro (institution → individual outcome) account suited to comparative or longitudinal quantitative work. ESR rewards a mechanism that travels over a coefficient bound to one country or wave. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a sociology project fits the European Sociological Review (ESR) and whether to write a full Article, a Comment/Reply, or a Data Brief. ESR is Europe's flagship quantitative-sociology journal, so the test is a portable mechanism studied with a rigorous comparative or longitudinal quantitative design. Frames the question; it does not collect data.

Use when preparing the Data Availability Statement and the replication package for a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript. ESR requires a Data Availability Statement for every manuscript and (for submissions from 1 January 2025) a replication package for statistical/computational work upon conditional acceptance; qualitative work is exempt. Prepares documentation; it does not over-state or under-state the policy.

Use when starting or routing any European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript and unsure which skill applies. Routes to the right ESR sub-skill based on the lifecycle stage and the manuscript type (research Article ~8,000 words vs. Comment/Reply vs. Data Brief). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a European Sociological Review (ESR) manuscript so it reads for a comparative quantitative audience, follows OUP/ESR conventions, and fits the limits (Articles around 8,000 words including endnotes and references; abstract at most 200 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when the credibility of an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript rests on experimental control — incentive compatibility, randomization, the no-deception gate, and clean treatment contrasts. Stress-tests design-based identification before exhibits are finalized; it does not draft prose.

Use when staking an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript's contribution against prior experiments and the behavioral theory it tests. Sharpens positioning; it does not invent results or citations.

Use when responding to a revise-and-resubmit or referee report for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript — including when a referee demands a new treatment, more sessions, or raises a deception/power concern. Plans the response; it does not run the new analysis.

Use when anticipating the experimentalist referee's objections for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript before submission. Pre-empts the standard pushbacks; it does not draft the response letter (see expecon-rebuttal).

Use when assembling the data, code, instructions, and experiment software for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript to meet the ESA reproducibility standard. Builds the deposit; it does not run the analysis or draft prose.

Use when an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) result may be a power artifact, multiple-comparisons artifact, or sensitive to the inference unit, exclusions, or design choices. Hardens the statistical case; it does not design the experiment or draft prose.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript via the Editorial Manager portal — the no-deception/incentive gates, instructions-at-submission rule, anonymous review, and ESA data-deposit prep. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript's exhibits must make the treatment contrast and its uncertainty visible at a glance. Builds design-carrying tables and figures; it does not run analysis or draft prose.

Use when turning the behavioral or game-theoretic argument behind an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript into pre-specified, testable predictions. Develops the hypotheses tested; it does not run estimation or invent citations.

Use when deciding whether a question is a method-defined fit for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript and which treatment contrast to build it around. Frames the fit decision; it does not invent results or citations.