Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when writing the single ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper rebuttal that responds to three external reviewers and two area chairs — triaging study-design and statistics critiques, correcting misreadings, promising only what a camera-ready can deliver, staying anonymous and within the length limit, and giving the online reviewer discussion reasons to raise scores.
Use when writing or auditing the related-work and positioning of an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — covering HRI's crossing literatures (robotics, HCI, psychology, design), writing a delta-first argument that credits each community, and keeping self-citation compatible with double-blind review.
Use when building the openness and replicability story for an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — sharing study materials, robot-behavior specifications, de-identified data, and analysis code; reporting Wizard-of-Oz and pre-registration; and stating honestly what can and cannot be reproduced in an embodied human-subjects study.
Use when drafting or revising an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper's structure and prose for an interdisciplinary audience — leading with the human-robot contribution and research questions, making hypotheses and measures explicit, describing the robot embodiment, keeping claims proportional to the study within the 8-page acmart budget, and writing so the chosen track's contribution type is unmistakable.
Use when staking the contribution of a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript against the right conversation — and against the siblings it is confused with (HRMJ, Personnel Psychology, JAP, AMJ). Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-line claim (hrm-contribution-framing).
Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across the journal's developmental, multi-round, double-blind process. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (hrm-review-process).
Use when the prose, abstract, or introduction are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript — making the HRM/OB argument land and surfacing the practitioner takeaway in the journal's dual-audience voice. Late-stage polish; it does not fix the theory or design (hrm-theory-development, hrm-methods).
Use when targeting Human Relations or deciding whether an interdisciplinary social-science-of-work / organizations 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 sharpening the theoretical contribution and the "so what" for a Human Relations (HR) manuscript once results exist. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the underlying theory or run analysis.
Use when drafting the response to a Human Relations (HR) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments in HR's developmental, theory-first culture. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).