Claude Skills by thedixitjain

Resume an interrupted Maestro session using the existing active-session file and shared phase tracking

Resume an interrupted Maestro session using the existing active-session file and shared phase tracking

../../../engineering/autoresearch-agent/skills/resume/SKILL.md

Resume an interrupted workflow run with verify-first strategy — loads sidecar state, verifies the last step, and continues execution.

Use when results exist but the \"so what for accounting\" is thin for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — turning estimates or propositions into one sharp, defensible accounting contribution. Sharpens the claim; it does not position against the literature (revacc-literature-positioning) or polish the prose (revacc-writing-style).

Use when research design and identification are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — choosing the setting, shock, and design that credibly identify an accounting effect, or fixing the primitives and solution concept of an analytical model. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation and robustness (revacc-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (revacc-contribution-framing).

Use when a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) revise-and-resubmit has arrived and you must plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — resolving the editor's first-order concerns (identification, the channel, measurement, or the model) before writing the letter. Plans and drafts the response; it does not run the new analyses from scratch (revacc-data-analysis) or re-run the submission preflight (revacc-submission).

Use when calibrating expectations for the Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) review cycle — its fast, first-round-decision culture, double-blind process, the RAST Conference path, and when to consider a sibling venue. Sets expectations and strategy; it does not run the submission preflight (revacc-submission) or draft the response letter (revacc-rebuttal).

Use when the exhibits are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — building self-contained accounting panel tables, event-study and equilibrium figures, and a descriptive-statistics block that survives referee scrutiny. Builds the exhibits; it does not run the analysis (revacc-data-analysis) or polish the surrounding prose (revacc-writing-style).

Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or testable predictions are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — articulating the friction behind an accounting effect or building a parsimonious disclosure/contracting model with proven propositions. Builds the argument; it does not design identification (revacc-methods) or run estimation (revacc-data-analysis).

Use when scoping or pressure-testing the research question for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — confirming it is a contribution-driven financial-accounting question that fits RAST's archival/analytical/experimental lanes. Locks the question; it does not build the model (revacc-theory-development) or design identification (revacc-methods).

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

Analyzes sales pipeline health, revenue forecasting accuracy, and go-to-market efficiency metrics for SaaS revenue optimization. Use when analyzing sales pipeline coverage, forecasting revenue, evaluating go-to-market performance, reviewing sales metrics, assessing pipeline analysis, tracking forecast accuracy with MAPE, calculating GTM efficiency, or measuring sales efficiency and unit economics for SaaS teams.

Use when targeting Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) or deciding whether an accounting manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Use when targeting Review of Finance or deciding whether a finance manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Use when targeting Review of Financial Studies (RFS) or deciding whether a finance manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Comprehensive PM resume review and tailoring against 10 best practices including XYZ+S formula, keyword optimization, job-specific tailoring, and structure. Use when reviewing a PM resume, preparing for job applications, or improving resume impact.

When the user wants help with revenue operations, lead lifecycle management, or marketing-to-sales handoff processes. Also use when the user mentions 'RevOps,' 'revenue operations,' 'lead scoring,' 'lead routing,' 'MQL,' 'SQL,' 'pipeline stages,' 'deal desk,' 'CRM automation,' 'marketing-to-sales handoff,' 'data hygiene,' 'leads aren't getting to sales,' 'pipeline management,' 'lead qualification,' or 'when should marketing hand off to sales.' Use this for anything involving the systems and p...

Design and improve revenue operations, lead lifecycle rules, scoring, routing, handoffs, and CRM process automation. Use when marketing, sales, and customer success workflows need clearer operational structure.

Use when an RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request arrives and the team needs a structured response — parsing multi-section buyer-dictated requirements (MANDATORY vs WEIGHTED vs NICE-TO-HAVE), building a Shipley-method proof-point matrix mapping each requirement to a verifiable proof point, articulating 3-5 win-themes that ladder up across requirements, and producing a Shipley-derived winrate estimate that informs a bid / no-bid / partner-bid recommen...

Use when sample construction, estimator choice, factor/portfolio design, or measurement is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Settles design choices that make the identification credible; does NOT pick the identification strategy or run robustness.

Use when the causal-inference or asset-pricing identification strategy is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — quasi-experiments (DID, IV, RDD, event study) and factor-model identification. Stress-tests the design before drafting tables.

Use when deciding what belongs in the journal-hosted Internet Appendix vs. the main paper for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript, and how to structure it. Organizes supplementary material; does NOT generate the robustness content itself.

Use after a decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) on a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript, to structure the response letter and revision plan. Writes the rebuttal; assumes the manuscript itself is being revised in parallel.

Use when choosing suggested/opposed referees or running an objection pre-mortem before submitting a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Anticipates reviewer concerns; does NOT write the rebuttal (that is rfs-rebuttal).

Use when results may be fragile or when multiple-testing / out-of-sample discipline is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Builds the robustness battery referees will demand; does NOT design identification or write the rebuttal.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — the SFS Editorial Express portal, cover letter, formatting, Internet Appendix, submission fee, and SFS norms. Checks readiness; does NOT write the paper or the rebuttal.

Use when main-paper exhibits are the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — table layout, standard-error reporting, and publication-grade figures. Finalizes exhibits; does NOT decide robustness content or move material to the appendix.

Use when the research question or contribution is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Pressure-tests novelty-plus-rigor fit and drafts the contribution claim; does NOT design the empirics or position the literature in detail.

Use when deciding which rfs-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

In large or many-file projects, prefer cxs over raw rg/grep to reduce context waste.

'Performs deep clause-by-clause risk scoring across 10 categories with poison pill detection and financial exposure estimation. Use when a user needs to understand the specific risks in a contract before signing. Trigger with \"/risk-analysis\" or \"what are the risks in this contract\". '

Monitor portfolio risk, R-multiples, and position limits. Creates hedging strategies, calculates expectancy, and implements stop-losses.

Calculate portfolio risk metrics including VaR, CVaR, Sharpe, Sortino, and drawdown analysis. Use when measuring portfolio risk, implementing risk limits, or building risk monitoring systems.

Use when the marginal contribution of a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript to the finance literature is fuzzy or undersold — turning a result into a defensible \"what we now know that we did not\" claim that a top-three-standard referee will accept.

Use when auditing Review of Finance empirical or theoretical analysis: sample construction, identification, asset-pricing tests, corporate-finance variables, robustness, code reproducibility, and evidence that can satisfy top-three-finance-journal standards.

Use when the credibility core of a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript is the bottleneck — causal identification for empirical finance (DID, IV, RDD, event study, natural experiments) OR assumptions, results, and proof exposition for theoretical finance. Stress-tests the design or model to the top-three-finance-journal standard.

Use when drafting a Review of Finance response letter and revision plan after an R&R, especially under the two-round philosophy, top-three-finance standards, code/data conditions, and page-cap constraints.

Use when interpreting Review of Finance desk screening, Screen Reports, double-blind review, top-three-finance-journal referee standards, two-round decision philosophy, Fast-Track timing, and sanctions for undisclosed resubmission or dual submission.

Use when running a Review of Finance submission preflight for Editorial Express, regular versus Fast-Track fee choice, 60-page cap, 150-word abstract, double-blind anonymity, Chicago references, cover-letter disclosure, and code-sharing exceptions.

Use when designing Review of Finance tables and figures under the 60-page total cap, including empirical-finance exhibits, theory figures, robustness tables, data-description tables, and replication-friendly notes.

Use when judging whether a finance idea clears the Review of Finance (RoF) general-interest bar before any estimation or modeling — first-order question, fit with the journal's empirical-and-theoretical scope, and the top-three-finance-journal standard RoF referees apply.

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

Use when drafting the RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) invited one-page rebuttal — the above-threshold-only response read primarily by the Area Chair before the decision meeting — including triage, page-budget allocation, anonymity, and what to do when no rebuttal invitation arrives.

SaaS financial health advisor. Use when a user shares revenue or customer numbers, or mentions ARR, MRR, churn, LTV, CAC, NRR, or asks how their SaaS business is doing.

Applies NASA Power of 10 rules for safety-critical verifiable code. Use when auditing financial, medical, or high-reliability system code.

Draft cold emails, follow-ups, and proposal templates. Creates pricing pages, case studies, and sales scripts. Use PROACTIVELY for sales outreach or lead nurturing.

When the user wants to create sales collateral, pitch decks, one-pagers, objection handling docs, or demo scripts. Also use when the user mentions 'sales deck,' 'pitch deck,' 'one-pager,' 'leave-behind,' 'objection handling,' 'deal-specific ROI analysis,' 'demo script,' 'talk track,' 'sales playbook,' 'proposal template,' 'buyer persona card,' 'help my sales team,' 'sales materials,' or 'what should I give my sales reps.' Use this for any document or asset that helps a sales team close deals....

Create sales collateral such as decks, one-pagers, objection docs, demo scripts, playbooks, and proposal templates. Use when a sales team needs assets that help reps move deals forward and close.

Analyzes RFP/RFI responses for coverage gaps, builds competitive feature comparison matrices, and plans proof-of-concept (POC) engagements for pre-sales engineering. Use when responding to RFPs, bids, or proposal requests; comparing product features against competitors; planning or scoring a customer POC or sales demo; preparing a technical proposal; or performing win/loss competitor analysis. Handles tasks described as 'RFP response', 'bid response', 'proposal response', 'competitor comparis...