Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use as the final preflight before submitting to Molecular Cell — a complete checklist across mechanism, single-mechanism arc, length budget, figures, STAR Methods, data deposition, numbered references, front-matter artifacts, and required files. Bundles the checklist and cover-letter templates.

Use to write Molecular Cell's Summary — a single unstructured paragraph (~150 words; re-check on the official site) that conveys the molecular question, the mechanism, and its physiological consequence, named and quantified for a molecular-biology readership. Late-stage polish.

Use when deciding which molcell-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from mechanism-fit test through reviewer rebuttal for Molecular Cell (Mol. Cell, Cell Press). Routes to the specialized skills — it does not replace them.

Use to structure a Molecular Cell Article and hold its length — Summary, Introduction, Results, Discussion, STAR Methods, figure legends, references — with the ~7,000-word main-text and ~7-display-item budgets, and Results subheadings that carry the single-mechanism argument.

Use when packaging datasets, models, prompts, or annotation materials for a NAACL-bound submission — building the artifact around the Responsible NLP checklist's artifact questions, documenting provenance and licensing for language data, and handling community-owned or Indigenous-language resources correctly.

Use when writing the ARR author response for a paper headed to NAACL — deciding which reviewer objections to spend the window on, drafting replies that give the action editor a citable meta-review sentence, and protecting the score record that NAACL's committee will later read at commitment.

Use when converting a paper accepted to NAACL Main or Findings into its final ACL Anthology version — merging promised revisions, restoring identity and community acknowledgements, applying the extra-page allowance, fixing Anthology metadata, and planning presentation logistics for an Americas host city.

Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of a NAACL submission — matching evidence to language-coverage claims, keeping cross-lingual comparisons budget-fair, testing on natively authored rather than translated data where the claim requires it, and reporting variance that survives reviewer probing.

Use when building the related-work and positioning story for a NAACL submission — covering the ACL Anthology lineages reviewers expect, citing Findings, workshop, and regional venues correctly, handling resubmission histories and concurrent preprints under ARR rules, and stating the delta in one falsifiable sentence.

Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a NAACL submission — treating the Responsible NLP checklist as a binding contract, pinning model versions and API access dates, making multilingual evaluation re-runnable, and stating an honest release level instead of an aspirational one.

Use when reasoning about how a NAACL decision actually gets made — the division of labor between ACL Rolling Review (reviews, meta-review) and the NAACL program committee (commitment-stage acceptance into Main or Findings), where author leverage exists at each stage, and how the skipped-year calendar shapes committee behavior.

Use when a paper aimed at NAACL is about to be uploaded to an ACL Rolling Review cycle — verifying that the chosen cycle can still reach the next NAACL edition, that the PDF passes ARR's format and anonymization gates, and that every declaration on the OpenReview form survives a desk-reject audit.

Use when deciding what goes into the content pages, the uncounted sections, the appendix, and the optional uploads of a NAACL-bound ARR submission — allocating material by what reviewers are actually obliged to read, and keeping glossed language examples and long tables from starving the main argument.

Use when deciding whether a project should target NAACL rather than ACL, EMNLP, EACL, AACL, LREC-COLING, TACL, or an ML venue — weighing the chapter's Nations-of-the-Americas identity, theme tracks, timing across skipped years, and whether the paper's audience actually convenes at this conference.

Use when planning a research project's calendar toward NAACL — handling the chapter's skipped-year rhythm, choosing an ARR cycle when the edition's feeding cycles are not yet announced, backward-planning data and annotation work, and keeping a decision tree for commit-versus-wait-versus-reroute moments.

Use when revising the prose of a NAACL submission — scoping every claim to the languages and varieties actually tested, presenting non-English examples with glosses that carry the argument, writing a Limitations section that anticipates reviewers, and cutting to the ARR content-page budget without losing the linguistic substance.

Use when preparing an NDSS artifact for evaluation after conditional acceptance — targeting the Available, Functional, and Reproduced badges, packaging attacks and measurements responsibly, writing the 2-page artifact appendix, and handling dangerous or embargoed material.

Use when writing an NDSS rebuttal and working the interactive discussion phase — triaging Round-2 reviews under a short window, answering adaptive-attack and ethics objections with pointable evidence, and negotiating toward Accept or a well-scoped Minor/Major Revision.

Use when converting an accepted NDSS paper into the final open-access version — satisfying Minor/Major Revision conditions, de-anonymizing, restoring disclosure specifics, adding earned artifact badges, and meeting the Internet Society proceedings and camera-ready requirements by the January deadline.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an NDSS paper — attack demonstrations, defense evaluations under adaptive adversaries, and Internet measurements — choosing between testbed, emulation, and live experiments and meeting NDSS's deployment-realism evidence bar.

Use when positioning an NDSS submission against prior literature — sweeping the security big four plus the specialist venues, writing precise deltas, verifying every citation against NDSS's open proceedings and dblp, and keeping self-reference double-blind.

Use when making an NDSS paper's results reconstructible — snapshotting live-network observations, pinning testbeds and toolchains, scrubbing traces that carry identities, and writing honest availability statements when ethics or vendor embargoes limit release.

Use when interpreting where an NDSS submission stands — the two-round pipeline inside each cycle, the early reject with Round-1 reviews, rebuttal and interactive discussion, the Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision decision set, and the Ethics Review Board's role.

Use when performing the final pre-upload audit of an NDSS submission — HotCRP fields, the AoE deadline, NDSS template and 13-page compliance, double-blind sweep, ethics readiness, the six-per-author cap, overlap rules, and desk-reject triage in the last week.

Use when dividing an NDSS paper between the 13-page body, the Ethics Considerations section, references, and appendices — deciding what reviewers must see in-body, what the page-limit exclusions really buy, and how the camera-ready gains a 2-page artifact appendix.

Use when deciding whether a security project belongs at NDSS — the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium — or should route to IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, CCS, PETS, IMC, or ACSAC, applying NDSS's networked-adversary and deployment-realism tests before any writing begins.

Use when planning an NDSS submission calendar — choosing between the summer and fall cycles, backward-planning from the AoE deadline through early-reject, rebuttal, notification, camera-ready, and the Seoul symposium, and placing NDSS honestly inside the security big-four retargeting year.

Use when drafting or revising an NDSS paper's prose — building the first page around a capability-bounded networked adversary, sizing claims to evidence, weaving the ethics signal into the narrative, and fitting the argument into NDSS's 13-page body ahead of a two-round read.

Use when preparing an accepted NSDI paper's artifact for badge evaluation — packaging code, traces, and testbed recipes for the AEC, choosing which badges to pursue, meeting Zenodo-style permanence expectations, and timing public release to stay eligible for the Community Award.

Use when answering NSDI reviewers through the channel the venue actually provides — executing a one-shot revision against the required-issues list, writing the change memo and highlighted diff for the same reviewers, and pre-empting objections inside the submission when no response phase exists.

Use when converting an NSDI acceptance into a published, presented paper — de-anonymizing within the same 12-page cap, meeting the final-papers deadline that also gates Community Award eligibility, designating the presenter, and landing in USENIX's open-access proceedings for the May symposium.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an NSDI submission — choosing traces, testbeds, and deployment evidence, sizing scale and failure-injection experiments, picking baselines that fight back, and reporting tail behavior so networked-systems reviewers can see where the design wins, loses, and breaks.

Use when positioning an NSDI submission against the networked-systems literature — covering the NSDI/SIGCOMM/OSDI/SOSP lanes plus both accepted-paper cohorts of the current edition, verifying venues against dblp and open-access USENIX proceedings, and handling self-citations and concurrent submissions under double-blind rules.

Use when making an NSDI paper's results reconstructible — capturing testbed topology, trace provenance, and configuration while experiments run, planning which datasets can ship publicly, and keeping the paper and artifact from drifting apart so badge evaluation and the Community Award stay reachable.

Use when interpreting where an NSDI submission stands — the per-deadline PC pipeline, the three-way outcome space of accept, one-shot revision, and reject, the cross-deadline resubmission ban, reviewer continuity across revisions, and what each decision letter actually commits the authors to.

Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an NSDI submission — the abstract-then-paper week on the per-deadline HotCRP site, 11:59 pm US Eastern cutoffs, the 12-page cap with references and appendices outside it, track-dependent anonymization, the eight-paper author cap, and the resubmission-ban check.

Use when splitting NSDI material across the 12-page body, the appendix pages the CFP allows beyond references, HotCRP auxiliary-material uploads for critical online content, and the one-shot-revision packet — deciding what reviewers must see in-body versus what merely supports it.

Use when judging whether a project belongs at NSDI, picking among its research, operational-systems, and frontiers tracks, or re-routing to SIGCOMM, OSDI, SOSP, FAST, or SIGMETRICS — testing the networking-stack contribution, the CFP's out-of-scope lines, and which of the two yearly deadlines to aim at.

Use when planning an NSDI campaign across the spring and fall deadlines — sequencing abstract and paper gates, notification waits, one-shot revision windows, artifact evaluation, and the May symposium — so a networked-systems project always knows which of the two yearly gates it is really building toward.

Use when drafting or revising NSDI prose — building the operational-pain-to-design-principle arc, fitting argument and figures into 12 pages with references and appendices outside the cap, calibrating claims to trace and testbed evidence, and writing for reviewers who read tail percentiles before adjectives.

Use when writing the cover letter for a Nature Geoscience submission, which must convince an in-house editor that the work is a broad-interest Earth-system advance appropriate for a diverse readership. Drafts the editorial case; does not edit the manuscript itself.

Use when designing or auditing display items for a Nature Geoscience manuscript, where 4-6 figures/tables must carry the Earth-system advance and its uncertainty for a broad readership. Designs figure strategy; does not run the analysis or write prose.

Use when a Nature Geoscience manuscript exceeds the ~3,000-word Article limit, the 4-6 display-item ceiling, or the reference cap, where content must be relocated to online Methods or Supplementary Information. Triages what to cut, compress, or move; does not rewrite content from scratch.

Use when building the online Methods section of a Nature Geoscience manuscript so every quantitative Earth-science claim is grounded in data, model diagnostics, and quantified uncertainty. Structures Methods and the reproducibility layer; does not design figures or frame the headline result.

Use when choosing suggested and excluded referees for a Nature Geoscience submission and pre-empting the objections Earth-science referees are likely to raise. Plans referee handling; does not write the manuscript or the rebuttal.

Use when a Nature Geoscience result is correct but its headline advance and cross-disciplinary significance are not yet sharp. Structures the one-advance narrative and the "Here we show" abstract; does not run analysis or design figures.

Use when responding to Nature Geoscience referee reports or editor decisions — point-by-point reply, resubmission, and the Nature Portfolio appeal route. Structures the response and revision; does not redraft the science from scratch.

Use when deciding whether an Earth-science result clears Nature Geoscience's broad-interest, cross-disciplinary Earth-system gate, or whether it belongs in a community journal such as JGR, GRL, or Communications Earth & Environment. Diagnoses venue fit; does not write or frame the result.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Nature Geoscience manuscript — word/display-item limits, format, files, online Methods, Supplementary Information, Reporting Summary, data/code availability, and Editorial Manager metadata. Verifies submission readiness; does not write content.

Use when partitioning content between the Nature Geoscience main text and its Supplementary Information, ensuring the Article stands alone while extended data, model output, and derivations live in the SI. Organizes the SI; does not write the main text.