Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when revising a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review for the PiHG voice — authoritative, critically argued, accessible to geographers outside the subfield, signposted, with a strong opening and a forward-looking agenda close, and a short unstructured abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (proghg-organizing-framework) or audit balance (proghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance).
Use when meeting Psychological Science's open-science requirements. For submissions on or after 1 January 2024 the journal requires open data and materials (case-by-case exemptions), a Research Transparency Statement placed between the Introduction and Methods, persistent identifiers for shared content, and treats transparency limits and preregistration quality as factors in editorial decisions. Prepares compliance; it does not waive requirements.
Use when writing the response to a Psychological Science revise-and-resubmit. Reviews here often demand added robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger transparency, so the response must address every point and strengthen credibility without breaking the tight format. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
Use when drafting or polishing a Psychological Science manuscript to fit its distinctive word format (Introduction + Discussion + footnotes + acknowledgments + appendices <= 2,000 words combined; Method + Results excluded; 150-word structured abstract) in APA 7th-edition style. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
Use when a Psychological Review decision letter (usually a major revision) has arrived and you must write the response document and revise the theory. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does NOT run the resubmission preflight (psychrev-submission) or build new theory from scratch (psychrev-theory-construction).
Use when deciding whether an idea is a genuine theoretical problem with the scope and generality Psychological Review demands — and, critically, whether it is theory rather than an empirical report. Screens fit and frames the problem; it does NOT build the model (that is psychrev-theory-construction) or position it against rivals (psychrev-literature-positioning).
Use when polishing a Psychological Review manuscript to APA house style and theory-paper register — mechanism-first prose, model vocabulary, no empirical-report framing. A late-stage polish; it does NOT build the theory (psychrev-theory-construction) or derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development).
Use when positioning a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a field-wide contribution that also informs practice. PAR readers span public management, governance, and the practitioner community, so the paper must engage the core PA debates and not just one niche. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
Use when writing the response to a Public Administration Review (PAR) revise-and-resubmit. PAR weighs both scholarly rigor and the practitioner "so-what," so the response must convert each reviewer, satisfy the handling editor, and keep the Evidence for Practice intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
Use when building the theoretical argument of a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript into a contribution that advances public-management theory and informs practice. PAR rewards a clear, portable mechanism with explicit scope conditions plus a defensible practitioner "so-what." Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.