Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when shaping a proposal for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) contribution — the proposal route (required for cooperative and miscellaneous pieces, optional for stand-alone), what a proposal contains, and how invited/special-issue work differs. Frames the pitch; it does not gather the literature (ppsych-literature-synthesis) or run the submission preflight (ppsych-submission).

Use when responding to a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) editor and reviewer decision letter — coverage gaps, balance/fairness complaints, framework/argument asks, accessibility, and open-science requests. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does not run the submission preflight (ppsych-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (ppsych-organizing-framework).

Use when running the final submission preflight for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) manuscript via the ScholarOne/Manuscript Central portal — contribution-type/proposal route, abstract limit, APA formatting, open-science deposits, cover-letter declarations, and suggested reviewers. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building exhibits for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — the conceptual/framework figure, who-found-what summary tables, and (for meta-science) practice-prevalence or replication exhibits. Designs review/synthesis exhibits in APA style; it does not produce original-experiment result tables (a PoPS review reports no new study of its own).

Use when judging whether a question is a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS)-scale contribution — broad, integrative, theoretical, or meta-scientific rather than a single study — and framing its animating question. Decides fit and venue; it does not gather the literature (ppsych-literature-synthesis) or shape the proposal (ppsych-proposal-and-commissioning).

Use when meeting open-science and reproducibility obligations for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece — repository deposit for any original data, a documented and ideally preregistered systematic protocol for meta-science, and exemplary disclosure (PoPS is an open-science leader). Builds the transparency layer; it does not draft the synthesis (ppsych-organizing-framework) or run the submission preflight (ppsych-submission).

Use when deciding which ppsych-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a broad integrative review, theoretical statement, or meta-science piece from topic through revision for a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) manuscript. Routes by lifecycle stage and contribution type; it dispatches and does not draft content.

Use when revising a Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) piece for the PoPS voice — broad, provocative, accessible to psychologists outside the subfield, signposted, with a strong opening, a forward-looking close, an APA reference style, and a ≤200-word review-style abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (ppsych-organizing-framework) or appraise evidence (ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymized review — correct rate construction, honest uncertainty, and demographic methods done right, with the development/policy meaning of each quantity made clear. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript against the population-and-development literature so it reads as a broad-interest contribution. PDR readers span demography, economics, environment, and policy, so the paper must engage both the population-science conversation and the development debate it touches. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) revise-and-resubmit. PDR review is double-anonymized and cross-field (demographers and development scholars), so the response must convert every expert reviewer on population substance and on the development meaning, without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript — choosing among demographic methods (life tables, decomposition, event-history, age-period-cohort, projections) and, where the question is causal, defending identification, with the population-and-development linkage made explicit. PDR judges each method on its own terms and asks what it shows about development. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when you need to understand how Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) evaluates a manuscript — an editorial-committee screen before external review, double-anonymized peer review by at least two referees, and a typical ~3-month time to first decision. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) via ScholarOne Manuscripts — article-type selection, Free Format first-round submission, double-anonymized preparation, the data availability statement, ORCID, and confirmation that there are no author fees (no APC). Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and legible to a broad demography-and-development readership. Covers distinctive demographic graphics (population pyramids, age schedules, survival curves, projection fans) and cross-country comparative exhibits. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the argument of a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript into a population-and-development contribution — whether the work is an empirical study, a formal/conceptual model, or a synthetic essay that reorganizes a debate. PDR rewards a clear mechanism, a sharpened estimate, or a framework that travels, over a bare correlation. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) and which article type to target. PDR sits at the intersection of demography and development, so the test is a population-change question tied to social, economic, or environmental change and policy — broad interest, not a narrow estimate. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use when preparing the data-availability statement and reproducibility materials for a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript. PDR follows Wiley's data-sharing and research-integrity expectations — a data availability statement, ORCID, and reproducible, well-documented materials deposited in a FAIR repository (verify current policy). Covers restricted-data exemptions. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use when starting or orienting any Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript and unsure which skill applies — the entry-point router that dispatches to the right PDR sub-skill by lifecycle stage and article type (Research Article, Notes & Commentary, Data & Perspectives, Archives, Book Review). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Population and Development Review (PDR, Wiley / Population Council) manuscript so it reads for a broad demography-and-development audience, follows the journal's house conventions (APA-style references; Free Format first round), and fits typical length norms (Research Articles ~8,000–10,000 words). PDR prizes lucid, essayistic prose. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when turning a mapped literature into one cumulative argument for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — synthesizing many sources into a claim the field could not see from any one of them. Builds the synthetic spine; it does not gather sources (see phg-literature-positioning) or make the critical turn (see phg-critical-intervention).

Use when framing the forward-looking contribution of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — the portable "so what / what next" agenda the field can carry forward. Frames and stakes the contribution; it does not make the critical move (see phg-critical-intervention) or polish prose (see phg-writing-style).

Use when making the critical move at the heart of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — naming what the field misses, mistakes, or takes for granted, and re-ordering the debate. Sharpens the critical turn; it does not build the synthetic spine (see phg-argument-synthesis) or frame the forward agenda (see phg-contribution-framing).

Use when mapping and entering a large, contested literature for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — defining the corpus, its camps and debates, and where your intervention sits. Positions the essay in the field; it does not build the synthetic argument (see phg-argument-synthesis).

Use when responding to a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the editor and referees that strengthens the review's argument and coverage. Structures the response and revisions; it does not fabricate literature or claims.

Use when anticipating how a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay will be judged — the double-anonymous review model, decision categories, and the desk-reject triggers specific to a review journal. Explains what to expect; it does not draft the manuscript or the response letter.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) via SAGE Track — genre selection, double-anonymous preparation, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, the ~100-word abstract, 5+ keywords, SAGE Harvard style, ORCID, and ethics declarations. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when designing the conceptual exhibits of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — typologies, framework diagrams, concept genealogies, and synthesis tables that do argumentative work. For a review journal these are conceptual, not data graphics. Designs exhibits; it does not build the argument itself.

Use when building the conceptual apparatus that organizes a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — the load-bearing concept that carries the argument and re-orders a literature. Sharpens the concept; it does not gather sources or run analyses (PiHG publishes no empirical work).

Use when deciding whether a topic is review-worthy for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) — a large, live, contested literature with real disciplinary stakes, not a gap-filling empirical study. Tests fit and scope; it does not build the argument or gather sources.

Use when starting or navigating any Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and whether the piece is a free-standing review article or a commissioned Progress Report. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when polishing a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay to house style — the argument-forward review voice, SAGE Harvard referencing, the ~8,000-word inclusive cap, ~100-word unstructured abstract, and 5+ keywords. Polishes prose and format; it does not build the argument.

Use when deriving predictions from a Psychological Review theory and confronting them with existing data and rival models — the journal's substitute for an empirical results section. Develops the argument; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or set its scope and identifiability limits (psychrev-boundary-conditions).

Use when setting the scope of a Psychological Review theory — what it explains, what it does NOT, and (for formal models) whether its parameters are identifiable. Bounds the theory; it does NOT derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development) or frame its advance over rivals (psychrev-contribution-framing).

Use when designing the figures of a Psychological Review manuscript — model/architecture diagrams and simulation-of-model-behavior plots (NOT experiments). Builds the exhibits; it does NOT derive the predictions they display (psychrev-argument-development) or set the model's scope (psychrev-boundary-conditions).

Use when articulating the theoretical advance of a Psychological Review manuscript — what the field can explain after the paper that it could not before, stated against the specific prior models it improves on. Frames the contribution; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or position it in the literature (psychrev-literature-positioning).

Use when locating a Psychological Review manuscript within its theoretical conversation — naming the theories it extends and, above all, the rival models it must beat or subsume. Positions the theory; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or run the head-to-head prediction contrast (psychrev-argument-development).

Use when a Psychological Review decision letter (usually a major revision) has arrived and you must write the response document and revise the theory. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does NOT run the resubmission preflight (psychrev-submission) or build new theory from scratch (psychrev-theory-construction).

Use when anticipating how a Psychological Review manuscript will be evaluated — masked peer review, the kinds of decisions, article types (full article vs. Theoretical Note), and what reviewers at a theory journal actually probe. Explains the process; it does NOT write the response document (that is psychrev-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (psychrev-submission).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Psychological Review manuscript — Editorial Manager portal, APA format and length, abstract, masking, references, ethics, and (for computational models) sharing the author's own model code. Theory journal; there is no empirical data-availability/replication-package step.

Use when building the actual theory or formal/computational model for a Psychological Review manuscript — turning a framed problem into explicit assumptions, mechanisms, formal structure, and derivations. Constructs the model; it does NOT derive and test predictions against data (that is psychrev-argument-development) or set scope and identifiability limits (psychrev-boundary-conditions).

Use when deciding whether an idea is a genuine theoretical problem with the scope and generality Psychological Review demands — and, critically, whether it is theory rather than an empirical report. Screens fit and frames the problem; it does NOT build the model (that is psychrev-theory-construction) or position it against rivals (psychrev-literature-positioning).

Use when deciding which psychrev-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory or formal-model manuscript from problem framing through masked-review revision for a Psychological Review submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing a Psychological Review manuscript to APA house style and theory-paper register — mechanism-first prose, model vocabulary, no empirical-report framing. A late-stage polish; it does NOT build the theory (psychrev-theory-construction) or derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development).

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review and supports honest Evidence for Practice — uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or mixed work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a field-wide contribution that also informs practice. PAR readers span public management, governance, and the practitioner community, so the paper must engage the core PA debates and not just one niche. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit. PAR weighs both scholarly rigor and the practitioner "so-what," so the response must convert each reviewer, satisfy the handling editor, and keep the Evidence for Practice intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript — public-management causal designs (DiD around reforms, survey & field experiments on bureaucrats/citizens, RD, IV), case comparison and process tracing, and mixed methods. PAR judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use when you need to understand how Public Administration Review (PAR) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review, desk screening for fit/scope/practice-relevance, the reject / major / minor / accept decision spectrum, the role of Evidence for Practice, and the article types. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Public Administration Review (PAR) — article-type selection, double-blind preparation, the ≤ 8,000-word and ≤ 150-word-abstract caps, Evidence for Practice points, APA formatting, and TOP transparency materials. Final checks; it does not draft content.