Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when drafting or revising the 中文摘要 or 英文 abstract for a 《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE) manuscript — the CSSCI 财经权威期刊 run by 中国社会科学院财经战略研究院. 当摘要写成"为高质量发展提供新思路"式套话、缺核心数据 / 识别策略 / 量化发现、或中英文语义不对齐时使用。Enforces the five-sentence pattern, requires quantified findings with named data sources (CSMAR / WIND / CEIC / 统计年鉴), and forbids empty-significance phrases.

Use when designing or writing heterogeneity analysis for a 《财贸经济》 manuscript. Enforces China-finance-institution-relevant cut dimensions and theoretical-justification discipline. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when the empirical identification strategy is the bottleneck for a 《财贸经济》 manuscript — fiscal / tax / financial / trade policy shocks and firm- / city- / bank-level quasi-experimental designs (DID, IV, RDD, DML). Stress-tests the design and the policy endogeneity before drafting tables. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when drafting or revising the literature-review section for a 《财贸经济》 manuscript, when the Chinese / English reference balance is off, or when canonical fiscal / financial / trade theory references are missing. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when designing or writing mechanism analyses for a 《财贸经济》 empirical manuscript. Mechanism tests that open the "policy black box" and land on identifiable channels are near-mandatory for empirical submissions. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when drafting or strengthening the policy-implications section of a 《财贸经济》 manuscript. Frames implications at the significance / institutional level but anchored in concrete Chinese fiscal / financial / trade policy levers — not the empty "加强完善推进" formula. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when responding to reviewer reports for a 《财贸经济》 R&R. Produces the point-by-point response letter and aligned manuscript edits. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when polishing the language and rhetoric of a 《财贸经济》 manuscript — eliminating empty-significance phrases, fixing the "加强完善推进" policy formula, replacing method-flexing with identifiable mechanism, and aligning tense / person / hedging with CSSCI house style. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for 《财贸经济》 — format, word count, blind review, references, anti-plagiarism, author info, transparent data sourcing, and supplementary files. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when finalizing regression tables and figures for a 《财贸经济》 manuscript. Enforces three-line table style, footnote conventions, column-count discipline, transparent data sourcing, and figure aesthetics. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when a 《财贸经济》 manuscript is at the topic-selection stage and the fit to fiscal / tax / finance / trade / consumption scope, the theoretical grounding, the marginal-contribution sentences, or the venue match are unsettled. Produces the contribution-sentence template and the scope-fit checklist. 本技能服务于《财贸经济》(Finance & Trade Economics, CTE)。

Use when deciding which cte-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for 《财贸经济》 (Finance & Trade Economics). Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when the sample construction, variable measurement, panel structure, or inference of a Financial Management (FM) manuscript is fragile — before identification can be trusted or exhibits finalized. Hardens the data layer; it does not establish the causal claim (finman-identification) or run robustness (finman-robustness).

Use when the causal or economic credibility of a Financial Management (FM) result is the bottleneck — endogenous corporate policy choices, staggered-event designs, weak instruments, or a "correlation dressed as a channel." Stress-tests the identification to FM's applied-finance bar before exhibits are finalized.

Use when deciding what belongs in a Financial Management (FM) internet appendix vs. the main paper, and how to organize it so each supplementary exhibit maps to a main-text claim. Structures supporting material; it does not establish results (finman-identification / finman-robustness) or finalize the data/code package (finman-submission).

Use when the contribution of a Financial Management (FM) manuscript relative to the published finance frontier is fuzzy, oversold, or indistinguishable from a specialist sibling. Stakes the marginal contribution and the sibling boundary; it does not run analysis or draft the intro prose.

Use when a Financial Management (FM) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (finman-identification / finman-robustness) or the resubmission preflight (finman-submission).

Use when pre-empting the objections a Financial Management (FM) referee is likely to raise, before pressing submit — red-teaming the paper from the perspective of an applied-finance reviewer who weighs relevance, rigor, and the "so-what." Anticipates pushback; it does not run the submission preflight (finman-submission) or draft a response to an actual report (finman-rebuttal).

Use when deciding which robustness checks a Financial Management (FM) paper actually needs — FM explicitly puts "less weight on trivial robustness tests," so the craft is selecting threat-targeted checks and demoting busywork. Curates the robustness layer; it does not establish identification (finman-identification) or format exhibits (finman-tables-figures).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Financial Management (FM) via the FMA portal and ScholarOne — submission fee and membership tiers, format and anonymization rules, and the FMA-specific process quirks. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building or revising the exhibits of a Financial Management (FM) manuscript so the main finance result and its economic magnitude are legible at a glance and respect Wiley/finance house norms. Formats exhibits; it does not establish the result (finman-identification / finman-robustness) or write the surrounding prose.

Use when deciding whether a topic fits Financial Management (FM) and is worth aiming there — testing the question for general-interest finance relevance, topicality, and managerial/market payoff before the literature and design work begins. Sets the target; it does not run analysis or write the paper.

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

Use when the prose, abstract, or introduction of a Financial Management (FM) manuscript buries the idea or its managerial/market payoff — FM's brand is "articles people actually read." Shapes exposition for a general finance audience; it does not establish results (finman-identification) or run the submission preflight (finman-submission).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript — cross-national inference, clustering and uncertainty, robustness, multi-method triangulation, measurement validity for governance indices, small-N comparative samples, and sensitivity to unobserved confounders. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when situating a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript in the comparative governance / public-policy / public-administration / institutions literatures and distinguishing it from sibling-journal audiences. Positions the contribution; it does not build the theory.

Use when writing the response to a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions revise-and-resubmit. The response must convert each of the ≥ 2 referees and the editor, answering comparative-reviewer concerns (case selection, generalizability across countries, measurement of institutions, alternative institutional explanations) point by point. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript — comparative/causal designs for governance & institutions, qualitative & comparative-historical case logic, mixed methods, and the measurement of governance/institutions. Governance judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when you need to understand how Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review by at least two referees, desk screening for scope (corporate governance and literature reviews are desk-rejected), the reject / R&R / accept decision categories, and how comparative-institutional reviewers judge. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript on the Wiley submission system — double-blind anonymization plus separate title page, the ≤ 9,000-word cap, ~150-word abstract, the Data Availability Statement, ORCID, and scope self-check. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript so exhibits carry comparative/institutional arguments across countries and are self-contained, accessible, and grayscale-legible. Designs cross-national tables, regression tables, coefficient/event-study plots, and maps; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the argument and theoretical contribution of a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript — to theories of the state, institutions, the policy process, bureaucracy, governance networks, and accountability, with portability across cases and disciplined concept formation. Builds the argument; it does not test it.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions and how to frame it. The test is comparative/institutional significance for how the state governs — not single-country administrative novelty. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use when preparing the Data Availability Statement and replication materials for a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript. Governance requires the statement (mandatory) and encourages sharing data/code in a DOI-citable repository, but does not run a verified pre-publication reproduction check like APSR. Builds the statement and materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use when starting or navigating any Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript and you need the entry point that routes to the right govern- sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and the comparative/institutional fit of the paper. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions manuscript so it reads for a comparative/international public-administration and political-science audience, front-loads the contribution, and fits the caps (≤ 9,000 words excluding citations; ~150-word abstract). Tightens prose and framing; it does not invent content.

Use when packaging an HPCA artifact for the voluntary post-acceptance evaluation on the separate AE HotCRP: scoping reproducibility tiers, preparing simulator- and silicon-heavy workflows for cold-start evaluators, budgeting their wall-clock time, and earning IEEE reproducibility badges.

Use when drafting an HPCA rebuttal and revision in the single combined window: triaging objections by what the window can fix, running a small number of new experiments, writing for the program-committee room and its champion, and revising the paper diff-minimally so response and revision agree.

Use when preparing an HPCA camera-ready: inverting every blinding action, applying the IEEE template and rights forms, restoring acknowledgments and the AI-use disclosure, integrating reproducibility badges and DOIs, and preparing the February/March talk in the winter slot.

Use when auditing an HPCA evaluation: declaring the fidelity contract (simulator, configuration, workloads, sampled regions, validation), matching each claim to its instrument, capturing real-silicon machine state, tuning baselines honestly, and reporting per-workload distributions rather than a single mean.

Use when building an HPCA related-work section: sweeping the HPCA/ISCA/MICRO/ASPLOS record on dblp and IEEE Xplore, writing lineage paragraphs with structural deltas, blinding self-citations without touching the bibliography, and honoring the rule that every reference lists all its authors.

Use when strengthening HPCA reproducibility: pinning the result chain from simulator commit through config, workload, sampled region, and statistics, building one manifest per figure, recording machine state for silicon runs, and keeping the environment resurrectable for the IEEE artifact-badging round.

Use when reasoning about the HPCA review pipeline: the double-blind process, what a single combined rebuttal/revision window means, champion dynamics at the program-committee meeting, how to read each outcome, and how confidentiality and the preprint policy shape expectations.

Use when auditing an HPCA submission for the two-step July gate on HotCRP, the 11-page main-body limit, the IEEE template, double-blind anonymity plus the all-authors reference rule, the AI-use disclosure, artifact-link scrubbing, and final-week sequencing before the paper deadline.

Use when deciding where HPCA material belongs across the four destinations the venue offers — the 11-page body, the anonymized artifact mirror, the staging shelf for the rebuttal/revision window, and the post-acceptance public release — while keeping anonymity intact and every reference author-complete.

Use when deciding whether a project is HPCA-shaped or better routed to ISCA, MICRO, ASPLOS, or a systems/theory venue, weighing whether the machine, the mechanism, or the measurement is the contribution, and whether the main track or the HPCA Industry track fits, from the winter seat of the architecture calendar.

Use when planning an HPCA project timeline from venue fit through the two-step July registration and paper gate, the autumn review wait, the single rebuttal/revision window, notification, IEEE camera-ready, artifact evaluation, and the February/March talk, with backward-planning offsets for a hardware-evaluated paper.

Use when revising an HPCA paper for the mechanism-to-behavior first-page arc, a measured motivation before the fix, a checkable mechanism description, numbers that name their instrument, and 11-page compression that leaves slack for the single rebuttal/revision window.

Use when packaging the artifacts of an accepted ACM/IEEE HRI paper — code, robot behaviors, de-identified data, and study materials — for openness and any ACM badges the edition offers, while being honest about the limits of reproducing an embodied human-subjects study.

Use when writing the single ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper rebuttal that responds to three external reviewers and two area chairs — triaging study-design and statistics critiques, correcting misreadings, promising only what a camera-ready can deliver, staying anonymous and within the length limit, and giving the online reviewer discussion reasons to raise scores.