Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when deciding which jmis-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills. Knows JMIS's management-and-economics-of-IS identity and its email-to-EIC, double-anonymized process.

Use when the prose is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) manuscript — an abstract and introduction that land the IS-management contribution, and a body that reads for a method-literate but management-minded IS audience. Late-stage polish; do not invoke before the mechanism, identification, and contribution are settled.

Use when turning results into an explicit theoretical contribution for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — the "what new theory do we learn?" statement and the discussion section. Frames the contribution; it does not build the original theory (jmgmt-theory-development) or run the analysis (jmgmt-data-analysis).

Use when estimation and results are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — SEM/CFA, HLM/multilevel, regression and interactions, mediation/moderation, and meta-analytic estimation with artifact corrections. Runs and validates the analysis; it does not design the study (jmgmt-methods) or frame the contribution (jmgmt-contribution-framing).

Use when the contribution-relative-to-prior-work is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — staking the gap against the right conversation and against sibling journals (AMJ, SMJ, JMS, Org Science). Positions the paper; it does not build the theory (jmgmt-theory-development) or write the discussion (jmgmt-contribution-framing).

Use when research design and measurement are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — matching design to the theoretical claim, construct validity, common-method bias, endogeneity, multilevel structure, and (for meta-analyses) coding/artifact corrections. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation (jmgmt-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response-to-reviewers for a Journal of Management (JOM) R&R — the point-by-point letter, the editor-first revision strategy, handling masked-reviewer conflicts, and staying within the 50-page limit across rounds. Drafts and structures the response; it does not run new analyses (jmgmt-data-analysis) or rebuild the theory (jmgmt-theory-development).

Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management (JOM) editorial and masked-review process — desk screening, the developmental R&R culture, the Review Issue track, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (jmgmt-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of Management (JOM) via SAGE/ScholarOne — the 50-page limit, 15-word title, 250-word abstract, masked review, the anonymized data transparency table, APA 7th style, and required declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — the means/SD/correlation table, CFA/SEM and HLM result tables, the theoretical-model figure, interaction plots, and meta-analytic forest/funnel plots, all in APA style and under the 50-page guillotine. Builds exhibits; it does not run the analysis (jmgmt-data-analysis).

Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — building constructs, mechanisms, boundary conditions, and a priori hypotheses (or a review's organizing framework). Constructs the theory; it does not run the analysis (jmgmt-data-analysis) or write the contribution paragraph (jmgmt-contribution-framing).

Use when scoping the question and choosing the article type for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — empirical vs. meta-analysis vs. systematic review, and which management subfield it speaks to. Locks fit; it does not build the theory (jmgmt-theory-development) or design the study (jmgmt-methods).

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

Use when the prose, introduction, or abstract is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — the theory-forward intro, the 250-word abstract, the 15-word title, APA voice, and enforcing the 50-page (inclusive) limit. Polishes the writing; it does not build the contribution (jmgmt-contribution-framing) or fix exhibits (jmgmt-tables-figures).

Use when the "so what for management theory and practice" is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — sharpening the one-sentence contribution and the implications. Crystallises the claim; it does not build the theory (jms-theory-development) or position against the literature (jms-literature-positioning).

Use when the execution and credibility of the analysis is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — regression/SEM and robustness for quantitative work, OR coding, abduction, and trustworthiness for qualitative work. Runs and defends the analysis; it does not design the study (jms-methods) or build exhibits (jms-tables-figures).

Use when positioning the contribution against the literature for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — locating the paper in a named theoretical conversation and showing what it adds. Stakes the contribution; it does not build the mechanism (jms-theory-development) or write the closing contribution paragraph (jms-contribution-framing).

Use when the research design is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — matching design (qualitative case/ethnography, process/longitudinal, survey, archival, experiment, multi-method) to the theoretical question, with qualitative rigor treated as first-class. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation or trustworthiness checks (jms-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response-to-reviewers and revision for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) R&R — turning a developmental, often multi-round decision letter into a point-by-point response that satisfies the handling editor. Drafts the rebuttal; it does not re-plan the review reading (jms-review-process) or rebuild the theory from scratch (jms-theory-development).

Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) editorial and peer-review process — desk screening, double-blind developmental review, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (jms-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript via the Wiley ScholarOne portal — anonymisation for double-blind review, Harvard referencing, the inclusive word count, article type, and the anonymous title page. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — regression/SEM tables and interaction plots for quantitative work, and data-structure, representative-quotes, and process-model figures for qualitative work. Builds and audits exhibits; it does not run the analysis (jms-data-analysis) or polish prose (jms-writing-style).

Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — building a mechanism and deriving hypotheses a priori, OR abstracting grounded constructs and propositions from qualitative data. Constructs the theory both deductively and inductively; it does not run the analysis (jms-data-analysis) or write the final contribution paragraph (jms-contribution-framing).

Use when scoping or stress-testing whether a research question fits the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) — a phenomenon-grounded management-theory question, quantitative or qualitative. Decides fit and framing direction; it does not build the theory (jms-theory-development) or position the literature (jms-literature-positioning).

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

Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — landing the abstract and intro, sustaining a theory-forward narrative, and meeting house conventions (Harvard refs, UK/US English, 200-word abstract). Polishes the writing; it does not invent the contribution (jms-contribution-framing) or run the analysis.

Use when bank/central-bank data construction, measurement, or sample design is the bottleneck for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript. Hardens how the dataset is built and measured so the identification can do its job; it does not re-argue the causal strategy or write prose.

Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript — macro shock identification (SVAR, narrative, sign/high-frequency monetary surprises), parameter identification in a monetary/banking model, or a micro-banking causal design. Stress-tests the data-to-object mapping to the JMCB bar before exhibits are finalized.

Use when deciding what belongs in the online appendix vs. the 40-page main text for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript, and how to keep the core self-contained. Organizes the supporting layer and the replication path; it does not generate new analysis or prose.

Use when staking a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript's contribution against the monetary, banking, and macro-finance literature and its sibling journals. Sharpens the "what is new and why JMCB" claim; it does not invent citations or evidence.

Use when a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) decision letter or referee report has arrived and you need a response-letter strategy and revision plan. Turns the reports into a prioritized, point-by-point rebuttal; it does not re-run the core analysis or re-write the paper.

Use when anticipating referee objections for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript before submission (or before resubmitting), so the paper pre-empts the predictable monetary/banking pushbacks. Hardens the paper against its own reviewers; it does not draft the response letter (see jmcb-rebuttal).

Use when a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) result may be specification-, sample-, or inference-sensitive and you need to plan checks that each kill a specific threat. Builds a threat-mapped robustness suite; it does not re-run the core identification or write the prose.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript via Editorial Express — the page limit, the submission fee, the title-page/format rules, the data-exemption request, and house citation style. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when exhibits — IRF plots, coefficient/event-study figures, balance-sheet and regression tables — are the bottleneck for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript. Makes each exhibit answer the question on its own; it does not re-run the analysis or write the prose.

Use when deciding whether a monetary, banking, credit, or macro-finance question belongs at the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) rather than a sibling, and how to frame its policy stakes. Locks the question and outlet fit; it does not invent evidence or citations.

Use when deciding which jmcb-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when the prose — abstract, introduction, and the policy framing — is the bottleneck for a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) manuscript. Makes the monetary/banking idea and its policy payoff land for a specialist-but-policy audience; it is a late-stage polish, not a substitute for fixing the analysis.

Use when running and reporting the estimation for a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — program-evaluation estimates plus the cost-benefit and distributional analysis JPAM expects, with robustness, heterogeneity, and honest uncertainty. Guides analysis norms; it does not replace the identification design.

Use when positioning a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript against prior work — the policy-evaluation evidence base, the relevant economics / political-science / public-management literatures, and the policy/program record. Frames the gap and contribution; it does not design the study or write the full review.

Use when writing the response to a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) revise-and-resubmit — converting cross-disciplinary referees (an identification reviewer and a policy reviewer) without diluting the credible core, and keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the causal identification of a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — RCTs, difference-in-differences / event study, regression discontinuity / kink, instrumental variables, and synthetic control for policy and program evaluation. Strengthens the design and its assumptions; it does not write estimation code.

Use when anticipating how a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, double-blind peer review, the article types and which are not peer-reviewed, decision categories, and what JPAM referees reward and punish. Sets expectations; it does not write the paper or the rebuttal.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) via Wiley Research Exchange — article-type selection, anonymized preparation, the APPAM membership-or-fee requirement, abstract/format, ORCID, data-availability statement, and declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — self-contained, decision-legible exhibits that show the policy effect, its uncertainty, the design's validity, and cost-benefit / distributional results. Designs exhibits; it does not run the estimation.

Use when building the conceptual frame of a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — the theory of change / logic model linking the policy lever to outcomes, the mechanism, and the scope conditions that govern transfer to other settings. Sharpens the argument; it does not run estimation or design identification.

Use when judging whether a research idea fits the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) — a credibly evaluable policy or program question with a decision-relevant takeaway that reaches across economics, political science, and public management. Tests fit and sharpens the question; it does not design the study or run analysis.

Use when preparing the replication / transparency materials for a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — depositing data and code in a public repository so the reported results can be reproduced, with an honest exemption path for restricted administrative data. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use when starting or orienting any Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right JPAM sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which article type (Feature Research Article, Point/Counterpoint, Methods for Policy Analysis, Policy Insights, Policy Retrospective) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) manuscript — a clear policy implication stated without overclaiming, legible to economists, political scientists, public-management scholars, and practitioners. Improves clarity and calibration; it does not change the analysis.