Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when deciding which ngeo-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from scope-fit through revision for a Nature Geoscience (Nat. Geosci.) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing the prose of a Nature Geoscience manuscript for Nature house style, accessibility to non-specialists, precise terminology, and calibrated Earth-science claims. Polishes language; does not restructure the result or manage the length budget.

Use when conducting and reporting the analysis of a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript across qualitative, content/discourse, computational, and mixed methods — making inference transparent and defensible on each tradition's own terms. Strengthens analysis and reporting; it does not collect data.

Use when situating a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript in the right interdisciplinary conversation and naming the specific gap or rival account it advances. Builds the positioning; it does not build the theory or design.

Use when responding to a New Media & Society (NM&S) revise-and-resubmit decision — building a point-by-point response letter to multiple interdisciplinary reviewers plus the editor. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript — informant/site logic for interviews and digital ethnography, sampling and coding for content/discourse analysis, data construction and validation for computational work, and integration logic for mixed methods. NM&S judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when anticipating how a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript will be judged — anonymous (double-anonymized) peer review, what interdisciplinary referees weigh, and the decision categories. Sets expectations; it does not write the paper or the response letter.

Use for the final preflight before submitting a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript via Sage Track — word target, abstract, keywords, masking, SAGE Harvard referencing, ethics statement, and ORCID. Runs the checklist; it does not draft content.

Use when building exhibits for a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript — quote/excerpt tables, coding-scheme tables, network and computational figures, and screenshots of platform interfaces. Makes exhibits clear and self-contained; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the conceptual argument of a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript — turning a platform finding into a portable concept or mechanism drawing on media, communication, and social theory. Builds the argument; it does not collect data or run analyses.

Use when judging whether a topic fits New Media & Society (NM&S) and how to frame it for an interdisciplinary digital-media-and-society readership. Tests fit and stakes; it does not design the study or write the paper.

Use when handling research ethics, transparency, and data sharing for a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript — consent and anonymization, the ethics of scraping and platform ToS, qualitative analytic transparency, and any quantitative data/code sharing. Prepares ethics and documentation; it does not over-state requirements.

Use as the entry point for any New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript. Routes to the right NM&S sub-skill based on the lifecycle stage and the method (qualitative interviews/ethnography, critical-theoretical, content/discourse analysis, computational, or mixed). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript for an interdisciplinary readership within the ~8,000-word target, using SAGE Harvard referencing. Shapes the writing; it does not generate findings or design the study.

Use when packaging an artifact for an accepted OOPSLA paper under the SPLASH artifact-evaluation track — surviving the kick-the-tires phase, earning the Functional and Reusable badges, depositing a Zenodo snapshot with a DOI for Available, and aligning artifact claims with the paper's Data-Availability Statement.

Use when writing an OOPSLA author response inside the short per-round window — reading reviews through the four-outcome lens (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), steering borderline papers toward a revision outcome instead of rejection, and committing only to changes deliverable within the round's revision mechanics.

Use when converting an accepted OOPSLA paper into its PACMPL journal article — final acmsmall formatting within the 25-page revision cap, de-anonymization and Data-Availability Statement updates, ACM open-access and rights steps, hitting the OOPSLA1 (April) or OOPSLA2 (October) issue, and planning the SPLASH talk.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an OOPSLA paper — matching evidence type to claim type across the venue's spread (benchmarks, corpus studies, case studies, user studies, mechanized proofs), building baselines and workloads that survive the SIGPLAN checklist, and sizing experiments to the round calendar.

Use when building an OOPSLA related-work section — positioning against the PACMPL family (POPL, PLDI, ICFP, OOPSLA itself) plus ECOOP, Onward!, and SE venues, citing journal-era OOPSLA papers in PACMPL volume/issue form, verifying every venue attribution on dblp, and stating per-line technical deltas.

Use when hardening an OOPSLA paper's empirical claims to the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation Guidelines — managed-runtime measurement discipline, warmup and variance reporting, corpus and benchmark provenance, environment pinning, and a Data-Availability Statement that the eventual artifact can actually honor.

Use when explaining or strategizing around OOPSLA's two-round review machinery — double-anonymous multi-stage reviewing, the four outcomes (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), reviewer continuity across rounds, round-hopping a Major Revision, and how acceptance flows into a PACMPL issue and the SPLASH talk.

Use when preparing or auditing an OOPSLA submission — picking between the two yearly PACMPL rounds, meeting the 23-page acmsmall anonymous format, writing the required Data-Availability Statement, clearing double-anonymous and concurrent-submission checks, and filing correctly on HotCRP before a firm AoE deadline.

Use when deciding what rides along with an OOPSLA submission beyond the 23-page body — appendices, full proofs or mechanizations, extended tables, anonymized code — keeping the package double-anonymous, self-consistent with the PDF, and honest about what reviewers are obliged to read versus what a revision can absorb.

Use when judging whether a project is OOPSLA-shaped — a PL contribution whose evidence spans design, implementation, formalism, or empirical study — and routing within the SIGPLAN family from OOPSLA's seat: POPL for theory-first, PLDI for implementation-performance, ICFP for functional, Onward! for vision, ECOOP, or SE venues.

Use when planning an OOPSLA campaign on the two-round clock — choosing October vs March entry, budgeting for Minor or Major Revision paths, mapping acceptance to the OOPSLA1 or OOPSLA2 PACMPL issue, scheduling artifact evaluation, and landing the SPLASH talk, with dates re-anchored to the live cycle.

Use when revising a draft into OOPSLA's register — design insight stated before the artifact, claims written to be falsifiable, motivating examples that carry semantics, journal-article pacing inside the 23-page cap, and honest threats-to-validity prose that preempts the revision lever rather than triggering it.

Use when preparing an OSDI artifact for sysartifacts-run evaluation — the post-acceptance timeline, the 2026 narrowing to a single Artifacts Available badge, Zenodo-grade permanent archiving, the AE-committee runbook, and the two-page Artifact Appendix that documents the result.

Use when handling author-side dialogue in an OSDI cycle — which in 2026 means no rebuttal at all: pre-empting objections inside the submission, then treating the conditional-accept shepherd exchange as the real author response, with a protocol for mandated revisions and for cycles that reinstate a response phase.

Use when converting an OSDI acceptance into the published paper — the June final-paper deadline, expansion to 14 pages plus appendices, the two-page Artifact Appendix, de-anonymization and restored acknowledgments, USENIX open-access publication from day one, and presenter obligations in Seattle.

Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an OSDI submission — choosing mature baselines and realistic workloads, structuring the section around research questions, measuring scalability and tail behavior, quantifying the design's costs, and fitting the evidence into the 12-page reviewed body.

Use when positioning an OSDI submission against prior systems literature — covering the OSDI/SOSP/NSDI/FAST/EuroSys/ATC lanes, verifying venues through USENIX's free open-access proceedings and dblp, and citing your own precursors without breaking the renamed-system anonymity rule.

Use when building reproducibility into an OSDI systems project — recording hardware, configuration, workload, and measurement provenance while experiments run, keeping paper and artifact from drifting apart, and setting up for the post-acceptance sysartifacts evaluation and open-access scrutiny.

Use when reasoning about how an OSDI paper is reviewed and decided — the double-blind HotCRP PC pipeline with no author-response period, the two tracks, conditional acceptance with heavyweight shepherding, co-chair recusal, notification timing, and the Jay Lepreau Best Paper lineage.

Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an OSDI submission on HotCRP — the December registration and full-paper deadlines at 2:59 pm PST, the 12-page/no-appendix check, institution-level double-blind rules, the renamed-system requirement, track choice, and the eight-submission author cap.

Use when deciding where OSDI content lives given the no-appendix submission rule — triaging material between the 12-page reviewed body, the 14-page-plus-appendices final paper, and the public artifact, since OSDI (unlike appendix-friendly venues) reviews nothing outside the body.

Use when deciding whether a systems project fits OSDI, choosing between its Research and Operational Systems tracks, or routing the work to SOSP, NSDI, FAST, EuroSys, or the post-USENIX ATC instead — applying the built-and-measured test before a December deadline is spent on a misfit.

Use when planning or managing a full OSDI cycle — the December title-registration and submission deadlines on HotCRP, the silent no-rebuttal review window, March notification, the May artifact deadline, June shepherded final papers, and the July conference — including rejection retargeting to SOSP or NSDI.

Use when drafting or revising an OSDI paper's prose and structure — building the pain → abstraction → mechanism → measurement narrative, fitting it into the 12-page reviewed body with no appendix escape hatch, and writing for a PC told to down-rank padded papers and given no rebuttal to clarify with.

Use when sharpening the one-sentence theoretical contribution of an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript and the intro/discussion claims that carry it. Frames the contribution; it does not build the theory (see orgstud-theory-development) or run analysis.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — qualitative coding and the data-to-theory ladder, process analysis, or quantitative estimation and robustness. Makes the evidence-to-theory link transparent; it does not design the study (see orgstud-methods).

Use when staking the contribution of an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript against the specific theoretical conversation it joins — what the field knows, what it misses, and the precise gap this paper closes. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory (see orgstud-theory-development) or run analysis.

Use when choosing and justifying the research design for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — qualitative/ethnographic, process, historical, or quantitative — and setting the rigor bar OS reviewers expect. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see orgstud-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response to reviewers and the revision plan for an Organization Studies (OS) R&R — turning developmental, theory-level reviewer comments into a credible point-by-point reply and revised manuscript. Plans and drafts the response; it does not redo the underlying analysis (route back to the specialist skills).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Organization Studies (OS) review cycle — desk-screen odds, the developmental double-anonymized process, decision types, and how to read what reviewers and the handling editor are signalling. Sets expectations and reading strategy; it does not draft the response (see orgstud-rebuttal).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Organization Studies (OS) via ScholarOne — double-anonymization, the 13,000-word cap, the 300-word unstructured abstract, the keyword rule, and SAGE house format. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building the exhibits for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — data structures, process-model figures, evidence tables, and (for quantitative work) results tables. Designs exhibits that make the inference auditable; it does not run the analysis (see orgstud-data-analysis).

Use when building the theoretical engine for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — the mechanism, process model, or conceptual move that constitutes the contribution. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis.

Use when choosing or sharpening the phenomenon and research question for an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — testing whether it is theoretically generative for OS's European organization-theory audience. Diagnoses fit and scope; it does not build the theory or run analysis.

Use when deciding which orgstud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for an Organization Studies (OS) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use for full-manuscript prose and the discursive European register of an Organization Studies (OS) manuscript — voice, theoretical texture, the argument's arc, and qualitative craft. Polishes the writing; it does not change the theory or analysis.