Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when building the conceptual or analytical framework for a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript. GEC values theoretically rigorous, interdisciplinary work, so the framework must connect concepts (vulnerability, governance, transitions, socio-ecological systems) to the empirical analysis. Builds the framework; it does not run the analysis.
Use when articulating the real-world, policy, and practice implications of a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript. GEC publishes the human and policy dimensions of environmental change, so genuine, evidence-grounded implications are part of the contribution — not a closing sentence. Sharpens the implications; it does not overstate them.
Use when writing the response to a Global Environmental Change (GEC) revise decision. GEC reviewers are interdisciplinary and often disagree across disciplines, so the response must convert each reviewer on their own terms without alienating the handling editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
Use when deciding whether an environmental-change project fits Global Environmental Change (GEC) and how to frame it. GEC publishes the human and policy dimensions of global environmental change and requires a significant social-science component, so the test is societal significance and policy relevance, not an environmental result alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.
Use when targeting Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) or deciding whether an Earth or space science manuscript fits this high-impact short-format venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting History and Theory or deciding whether a philosophy-of-history, historiography, or historical-method manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's meta-level theoretical bar, its historiographical and conceptual expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when organizing the body of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece along the doctrine to theory to normative-prescription arc that legal scholarship rewards. Structures the argument and its internal logic; it does not forge the thesis (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or format the citations (hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
Use when working through the Harvard Law Review (HLR) post-acceptance editing cycle — successive substantive and technical edit rounds, responding to editor markups, and page proofs to publication. Drives the edit cycle to completion; it does not manage the offer/expedite phase (hlr-placement-strategy) or the first editor handshake (hlr-student-editor-review).
Use when choosing or sharpening a topic for a Harvard Law Review (HLR) Article, Essay, or Book Review so it is timely, generalist-legible, and placeable in the student-edited law-review market. Judges fit and timing; it does not run the preemption search (that is hlr-preemption-check) or draft the claim.
Use when revising an HPCA paper for the mechanism-to-behavior first-page arc, a measured motivation before the fix, a checkable mechanism description, numbers that name their instrument, and 11-page compression that leaves slack for the single rebuttal/revision window.