Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when positioning an International Organization (IO) manuscript against the international-relations literature so it reads as a contribution to an IR debate. IO readers span rationalist, constructivist, institutionalist, IPE, and security traditions, so the paper must engage the IR conversation it speaks to and the closest prior IR work — while staying double-blind. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
Use when writing the response to an International Organization (IO) revise-and-resubmit. IO R&Rs come from expert IR referees whose anonymous reviews the editors return with a decision letter, and the editor adjudicates. The response must convert each reviewer on the IR theory and design without alienating the editor, keep the manuscript double-blind, and keep results and proofs re-runnable for IO's pre-final-acceptance verification. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.
Use when building the theoretical argument of an International Organization (IO) manuscript into a generalizable theory of international politics — whether rationalist/formal (bargaining, signaling, delegation, cooperation), constructivist/ideational, or empirical with explicit international mechanisms. IO rewards a portable IR theory over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
Use when revising an IPSN-lineage paper for a real sensing problem on the first page, a load-bearing information-processing or platform contribution, ground-truth methodology, energy/latency/accuracy budgets, honest deployment reporting, double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the ≤12-page ACM two-column budget.
Use when revising an IROS paper for a task-first opening, an integrated-system narrative, the references-counted-in page budget with no supplementary PDF, double-anonymous wording, demo-speak-to-numbers rewrites, and figure-first structure that carries the argument in the body for embodied-systems reviewers.
Use when drafting or revising an ISCA paper's prose — organizing 11 pages around one architectural insight, writing the motivation section from measured data, describing mechanisms at reviewer-checkable precision with figures that carry the design, and keeping quantitative claims calibrated to the instrument behind them.
Use when turning results into an explicit contribution to IS for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript and when drafting the mandatory ~500-word cover-letter contribution statement (required since June 1, 2023). Frames the contribution; it does not position the literature (isr-literature-positioning) or run the submission preflight (isr-submission).
Use when planning and drafting the response to an Information Systems Research (ISR) revise-and-resubmit — prioritizing the Senior Editor's binding concerns, addressing genre-specific reviewer asks (assumptions/proofs, identification/validity, evaluation), updating the contribution statement, and using the electronic companion. Drafts the revision and response; it runs after isr-review-process.
Use when polishing the prose, structure, abstract, and notation of an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — front-loading the IS contribution, writing for a sociotechnical and intradisciplinary readership, keeping the 300-word abstract and double-anonymized text, and following INFORMS author-date style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the contribution or identification/proof is still unsettled.
Use when deciding what lives in the ISSTA 18-page body versus the artifact and any appendix, covering the no-unlimited-appendix reality, what reviewers will and will not open, splitting a testing/analysis paper between body and package, anonymity of supplementary material, and keeping decision-critical evidence inside the reviewed pages.