Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when preparing the camera-ready of an accepted ACM/IEEE HRI paper — de-anonymizing systematically, completing ACM+IEEE dual-publication metadata (CCS concepts, ORCID, rights/eRights form), delivering every rebuttal promise within the 8-page budget, finalizing the video and de-anonymized archive, and passing production checks.

Use when designing or auditing the human-subjects study at the heart of an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — choosing between/within-subjects designs, running Wizard-of-Oz honestly, powering the sample, reporting statistics with effect sizes and qualitative rigor, selecting validated scales, adding manipulation checks, pre-registering, and meeting HRI's human-participants ethics obligations.

Use when writing or auditing the related-work and positioning of an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — covering HRI's crossing literatures (robotics, HCI, psychology, design), writing a delta-first argument that credits each community, and keeping self-citation compatible with double-blind review.

Use when building the openness and replicability story for an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — sharing study materials, robot-behavior specifications, de-identified data, and analysis code; reporting Wizard-of-Oz and pre-registration; and stating honestly what can and cannot be reproduced in an embodied human-subjects study.

Use to understand and navigate the ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper review pipeline — the initial desk check and track assignment, the 1AC/2AC plus three external reviewers, the double-blind two-phase model, the author rebuttal, the online reviewer discussion, the program-committee meeting, and the per-track subcommittees — and to see where author leverage exists.

Use when auditing an ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper submission for PCS readiness — the mandatory abstract-then-paper two-step deadline, choosing the correct one of the five tracks, the 8-page acmart anonymous format, the double-blind sweep across PDF and video, the human-participants ethics acknowledgment, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

Use when planning the supplementary materials for an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — above all the video figure that shows the embodied interaction, plus study instruments, extended results, and appendices — deciding what a reviewer must see to judge the interaction versus what belongs outside the 8-page body, all anonymized for double-blind review.

Use when deciding whether a human-robot-interaction project belongs at the ACM/IEEE HRI conference versus CHI, ICRA/IROS, RO-MAN, CoRL, HAI, or the THRI/JHRI journals, and then which of HRI's five full-paper tracks (User Studies, Technical, Design, Theory and Methods, Systems) it should enter, using the robot-embodiment and human-in-the-loop tests and the HRI calendar.

Use to plan an ACM/IEEE HRI campaign backward from the full-paper deadline through the abstract-then-paper two-step, the rebuttal, the program-committee meeting, camera-ready, and the March conference, coordinating the parallel alt.HRI, Late-Breaking Reports, video, and Student Design deadlines.

Use when drafting or revising an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper's structure and prose for an interdisciplinary audience — leading with the human-robot contribution and research questions, making hypotheses and measures explicit, describing the robot embodiment, keeping claims proportional to the study within the 8-page acmart budget, and writing so the chosen track's contribution type is unmistakable.

Use when organizing the body of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece along the doctrine to theory to normative-prescription arc that legal scholarship rewards. Structures the argument and its internal logic; it does not forge the thesis (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or format the citations (hlr-sources-and-bluebook).

Use when building and stress-testing the heavy footnote apparatus of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece so it survives the student-editor cite-check / source-pull. Builds and audits the apparatus for pull-readiness; it does not set Bluebook form per citation (hlr-sources-and-bluebook) or manage the editor relationship (hlr-student-editor-review).

Use when planning where and when to submit a law-review article and how to leverage offers — the distinctive Scholastica multi-submit, expedite mechanics, and the February-March / August seasons, with the Harvard Law Review (HLR) as a top target. Plans placement and timing; it does not run the final upload preflight (hlr-submission).

Use when verifying that a Harvard Law Review (HLR) argument has not already been made — the law-review "preemption check" run across SSRN, Westlaw/Lexis, HeinOnline, and Google Scholar BEFORE drafting. Confirms originality and refines the claim; it does not draft the thesis (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or the literature engagement in the body.

Use when working through the Harvard Law Review (HLR) post-acceptance editing cycle — successive substantive and technical edit rounds, responding to editor markups, and page proofs to publication. Drives the edit cycle to completion; it does not manage the offer/expedite phase (hlr-placement-strategy) or the first editor handshake (hlr-student-editor-review).

Use when citing authority in a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece — pinpoint citations, the authority hierarchy, and The Bluebook (which HLR co-publishes). Governs how sources are cited and weighted; it does not build the footnote apparatus end-to-end (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check) or write the prose.

Use when working with Harvard Law Review (HLR) student editors after an offer — the intensive substantive and technical edit, the cite-check / source-pull, and author responsiveness. Manages the relationship and process; it does not run the pre-offer placement (hlr-placement-strategy) or the author-side cite apparatus build (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Harvard Law Review (HLR) via HLR's own electronic submission system — manuscript readiness, anonymization, length limits, Bluebook 22nd-edition footnotes, expedite setup, and season timing. Final upload checks; it does not plan the placement strategy (hlr-placement-strategy) or draft content.

Use when articulating the central legal claim and normative payoff of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece so it reads as an original contribution, not a doctrinal survey. Forges the thesis; it does not search for preemption (hlr-preemption-check) or build the argument's internal structure (hlr-argument-structure).

Use when choosing or sharpening a topic for a Harvard Law Review (HLR) Article, Essay, or Book Review so it is timely, generalist-legible, and placeable in the student-edited law-review market. Judges fit and timing; it does not run the preemption search (that is hlr-preemption-check) or draft the claim.

Use when starting or navigating any Harvard Law Review (HLR) article, essay, or book review and you need the right next sub-skill. Routes by lifecycle stage and the distinctive student-edited, multi-submit/expedite law-review process. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when shaping the prose and structure of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece for a generalist, student-edited audience — clear introductions, disciplined Parts, and the heavy-footnote register of legal scholarship. Polishes how it reads; it does not forge the claim (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or format citations (hlr-sources-and-bluebook).

Use when sharpening the theoretical contribution and the "so what" for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript once results exist. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the underlying theory or run analysis.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative coding and data-to-theory construction, critical interpretation, or quantitative estimation and robustness. Makes the evidence-to-theory link transparent; it does not design the study (see humrel-methods).

Use when staking a Human Relations (HR) manuscript's contribution against the relevant scholarly conversation and adjacent journals. Positions the paper; it does not develop the theory or run analysis.

Use when choosing and justifying the research design for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative/ethnographic, critical, quantitative, or mixed — and setting the rigor bar. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see humrel-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response to a Human Relations (HR) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments in HR's developmental, theory-first culture. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Human Relations (HR) review process — the editorial scoping screen, double-anonymous developmental review, decision types, timelines, and when a sibling journal is the better route. Sets expectations; it does not draft the rebuttal (see humrel-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Human Relations (HR) via ScholarOne — anonymization, the 13k word cap, SAGE Harvard style, abstract/keywords, AI and data-transparency declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building and auditing the exhibits for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — qualitative data-structure and evidence tables, process models, and quantitative tables/figures. Improves the exhibits; it does not change the analysis or theory.

Use when building the theoretical engine for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — mechanisms grounded in social theory, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not choose methods or run analysis.

Use when deciding whether a question belongs in Human Relations (HR) and how to frame it for the journal's interdisciplinary work-and-society audience. Tests fit and sharpens the question; it does not develop the theory or invent evidence.

Use when deciding which humrel-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Human Relations (HR) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing full-manuscript prose and narrative craft on a Human Relations (HR) manuscript — the reflexive, theoretically-engaged HR voice, intro/abstract, and structure within the 13k cap. Polishes the writing; it does not change the theory or analysis.

Use when the one-sentence claim is not sharp for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — articulating the dual contribution the journal demands: a scholarly advance AND a clear implication for workforce policy or HRM practice. Frames the claim; it does not build the theory (hrm-theory-development).

Use when estimation and analysis are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — fitting HLM/SEM, testing mediation and cross-level moderation, defending aggregation, and qualitative coding rigor. Runs and validates the analysis; it does not design the study (hrm-methods).

Use when staking the contribution of a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript against the right conversation — and against the siblings it is confused with (HRMJ, Personnel Psychology, JAP, AMJ). Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-line claim (hrm-contribution-framing).

Use when the research design is the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — matching multilevel structure, multi-source/multi-wave timing, construct validity, and common-method-bias defenses to the theoretical claim. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation (hrm-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across the journal's developmental, multi-round, double-blind process. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (hrm-review-process).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") editorial process — the EIC fit/relevance screen, double-blind peer review, the developmental R&R culture, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response (hrm-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript via Wiley ScholarOne — double-blind anonymization, the title-page split, APA style, the data-availability statement, ORCID, and the dual-contribution check the EIC screens on. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — the descriptives/correlation table, the model build-up, interaction and simple-slope plots, the theoretical-model figure, and (for qualitative work) the data-structure figure. Builds reader-ready exhibits; it does not run the analysis (hrm-data-analysis).

Use when the theoretical argument and hypotheses are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — building an HRM/OB mechanism (AMO, HR-system strength, signaling, social exchange) and deriving testable predictions a priori. Builds the theory; it does not run the analysis (hrm-data-analysis).

Use when scoping or stress-testing the research question for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — confirming an HR-system/practice phenomenon with both a scholarly advance and a workforce-policy or HRM-practice payoff. Locks the question; it does not build the theory (hrm-theory-development).

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

Use when the prose, abstract, or introduction are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — making the HRM/OB argument land and surfacing the practitioner takeaway in the journal's dual-audience voice. Late-stage polish; it does not fix the theory or design (hrm-theory-development, hrm-methods).

Use to understand why ICALP (EATCS) has no artifact-evaluation track or badge scheme, and what plays the equivalent role for a pure-theory paper — the full version with complete proofs, reproducible computational certificates, and optional machine formalization — so authors coming from a systems/ML venue do not waste effort building an artifact ICALP does not evaluate.

Use when writing an ICALP (EATCS) Track B rebuttal in response to initial reviews, or when handling a Track A correctness query — correcting reviewer misreadings of a proof, pointing to the exact lemma or step that answers an objection, conceding real gaps honestly, and staying within the lightweight double-blind rules and the short rebuttal window.

Use when preparing an accepted ICALP (EATCS) paper for the LIPIcs open-access camera-ready — converting to the lipics-v2021 document class, de-anonymizing (restoring authors, affiliations, ORCIDs, acknowledgements, and funding), completing LIPIcs metadata (ACM CCS, keywords, DOI cross-references), reconciling the body with the public full version, and passing Dagstuhl production checks.

Use when matching the argument of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper to its claim — choosing the proof strategy for an upper or lower bound, deciding when supporting computation (SAT/SMT-verified base cases, computer-assisted case analysis, exhaustive small-case checks) legitimately backs a theorem, and keeping any such computation reproducible without turning a proof paper into an experimental one.