Use when deciding which anmath-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing work on a pure-mathematics manuscript from scope check through major revision for an Annals of Mathematics submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill anmath-workflow --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Anmath Workflow?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-anmath-workflow)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: anmath-workflow
description: "Use when deciding which anmath-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing work on a pure-mathematics manuscript from scope check through major revision for an Annals of Mathematics submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills."
category: general-purpose
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Annals-of-Mathematics-Skills/skills/anmath-workflow/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Annals-of-Mathematics-Skills/skills/anmath-workflow/SKILL.md
---
# Annals of Mathematics Workflow (anmath-workflow)
## Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you **which
anmath-* skill to use at your current stage** of a theorem-and-proof manuscript.
Default assumption: unless you say otherwise, the target is **Annals of Mathematics**,
where the bar is significance + originality + a complete, correct, rigorously verified
proof with clear exposition. The importance threshold is very high and acceptance is
highly competitive.
## When to trigger
- You ask "what should I do next?" with a math paper in progress
- You have a draft and need to find the current bottleneck (significance? a gap? exposition?)
- You are cycling between proof, writing, and referee response and have lost the thread
- You received a referee report from Annals and need to switch into revision mode
## Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Unsure the result clears the Annals importance bar / is in scope | `anmath-scope-fit` |
| Main theorem stated vaguely; significance/positioning unclear | `anmath-results-framing` |
| Proof works but the argument's architecture is not laid out | `anmath-methods` |
| Exposition is hard to follow; sectioning/notation/diagrams weak | `anmath-figures` |
| Long computations / auxiliary lemmas clutter the main line | `anmath-supplementary` |
| Prose is sloppy; "clearly"/"it is easy to see" hide steps | `anmath-writing-style` |
| Paper feels bloated or padded; every section not yet justified | `anmath-length-management`|
| Preparing the cover note to the editors | `anmath-cover-letter` |
| Ready to submit; need the final preflight | `anmath-submission` |
| Want to anticipate how an expert referee will probe the proof | `anmath-referee-strategy` |
| Received a report; need to revise and reply | `anmath-revision` |
## Default order
1. `anmath-scope-fit` — confirm the result is important and original enough for Annals
2. `anmath-results-framing` — state the main theorem(s) precisely and position them
3. `anmath-methods` — lay out the proof strategy, key lemmas, and where the difficulty lies
4. `anmath-figures` — exposition and structure: sectioning, notation, statements-before-proofs
5. `anmath-supplementary` — move auxiliary results / long computations to appendices
6. `anmath-writing-style` — eliminate gaps and "clearly"; tighten every claim
7. `anmath-length-management` — confirm every section is necessary; cut bloat
8. `anmath-cover-letter` — concise letter framing significance for the editors
9. `anmath-submission` — final preflight (format, TeX, MSC, references, arXiv)
10. `anmath-referee-strategy` — stress-test the proof against expert scrutiny before sending
11. `anmath-revision` — after the report arrives
> `anmath-writing-style` and `anmath-length-management` are **late-stage polish**; do not
> run them before the proof is actually complete and the architecture is fixed.
## Decision heuristics
- "I am not sure this is big enough for Annals" → `anmath-scope-fit`
- "My main theorem is a paragraph, not a precise statement" → `anmath-results-framing`
- "The proof is right but readers can't see the plan" → `anmath-methods`
- "A referee would get lost in Section 3" → `anmath-figures`
- "I have a 6-page computation in the middle of the proof" → `anmath-supplementary`
- "I wrote 'it is easy to see' and it is not" → `anmath-writing-style`
- "The paper is 90 pages and I can't justify all of them" → `anmath-length-management`
- "I'm clicking submit tomorrow" → `anmath-submission`
- "I got a referee report" → `anmath-revision`
## Difference vs. a generic math-writing toolbox
A generic LaTeX/writing helper optimizes for readability alone. This stack is tuned to
the Annals standard: **the importance bar is unusually high, and a single hidden gap is
fatal**. Significance and complete rigor dominate every routing decision here.
## Submission bundle layout
The final preflight (`anmath-submission`) checks a concrete file tree. A single hidden gap
is fatal at Annals, so the arXiv/journal package must let a referee verify the proof
end-to-end with nothing missing. Target layout:
```text
paper-submission/
├── main.tex % single self-contained source; amsart or Annals class
├── main.pdf % compiled, matches .tex exactly
├── refs.bib % all cited works; MathSciNet-verified keys
├── figures/ % vector (.pdf/.eps); each referenced in text
│ └── fig-1.pdf
└── README.txt % MSC 2020 primary+secondary, arXiv id, prior-submission note
CHECK before upload:
[ ] main theorem stated precisely in the introduction, with hypotheses explicit
[ ] every lemma either proved here or cited to a verifiable source
[ ] no "clearly" / "it is easy to see" standing in for an unwritten step
[ ] appendices hold long computations; the main line stays readable
[ ] cover letter frames significance for the editors (anmath-cover-letter)
```
## Anti-patterns
- **Do not** skip `anmath-scope-fit` — Annals desk-screens on importance first
- **Do not** let `anmath-figures` polish exposition while a proof gap remains open
- **Do not** let `anmath-revision` draft a reply before you have actually fixed the text
- **Do not** treat `anmath-supplementary` as a dumping ground — essentials stay in main text
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Annals-of-Mathematics-Skills/skills/anmath-workflow/SKILL.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!