Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when responding to a revise-and-resubmit or referee report for an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript — including when a referee demands a new treatment, more sessions, or raises a deception/power concern. Plans the response; it does not run the new analysis.
Use when the prose of an Experimental Economics (ExpEcon) manuscript buries the design or the result, or when the intro/abstract do not land for an experimentalist reader. Polishes structure and voice; it does not change the analysis.
Use when drafting ACM FAccT author responses — the short factual-correction rebuttal after preliminary reviews, and, distinctively for the 2026-new process, the Revise-and-resubmit round where you address Area-Chair-prioritized concerns from a mixed CS+law+social-science panel, map each to a concrete change, and survive a re-review while keeping mutual anonymity.
Use when positioning a USENIX FAST submission against the storage-systems literature across FAST, OSDI, ATC, SOSP, EuroSys, HotStorage, MSST, and the storage journals (ACM TOS), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-blind, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap.
Use when revising a USENIX FAST paper for a storage contribution on the first page, a design/mechanism narrative a storage reviewer can follow, an evaluation framed as the storage cost it changes (write amplification, tail latency, endurance, crash consistency), double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the USENIX two-column page budget.
Use when writing the cover letter for a Field Crops Research (FCR) submission to the Editors-in-Chief. The letter must establish scope fit (field-based, multi-season/-environment, a field crop, generally significant), state the novel contribution and article type, and confirm originality and data availability. Drafts the letter; it does not contact editors or invent claims.
Use when positioning a Field Crops Research (FCR) manuscript against the agronomy and crop-science literature so it reads as a general contribution to field-crop science, not a local report. FCR requires new scientific insight of general relevance and rejects corroborative or merely descriptive work, so the literature must establish the gap and the agronomic stakes. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
Use when preparing the reporting completeness and research-data materials for a Field Crops Research (FCR) manuscript. FCR requires a data-availability statement at submission, full agronomic reporting (cultivar, soil, weather vs. phenology, management, design), declaration of any generative-AI use, and supports data/methods co-submission to Data in Brief / MethodsX. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.
Use when writing the response to a Field Crops Research (FCR) revision decision (major or minor) and revising the manuscript. FCR reviewers commonly press on scope/generality, statistics and G×E, reproducibility detail, and a discussion that interprets rather than repeats. The response must address every point while protecting the contribution. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
Use when drafting or polishing a Field Crops Research (FCR) manuscript so it reads for a general agronomy/crop-science audience, follows FCR structure, and meets the format expectations (abstract <=400 words, 3-5 highlights of <=85 characters, grammatically sound English, concise results, a discussion that interprets rather than repeats). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.