Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when positioning a TACAS (ETAPS) submission against the verification literature across TACAS, CAV, VMCAI, FMCAD, SPIN, and journals (STTT, FMSD), writing delta-first contrast against the nearest tools and algorithms, crediting the benchmarks and solvers you build on, keeping self-citations anonymous for double-blind research papers, and handling competition-tool and prior-version overlap.
Use when deciding what belongs in a TACAS (ETAPS) paper body versus its appendix, supplementary website, and artifact, covering the 16-page (or 6-page) llncs.cls budget that excludes references and appendix, the rule that decision-critical content stays in the reviewed pages, category-appropriate anonymity of supplementary material, and how to split a verification paper between body, appendix, and a mandatory-or-voluntary artifact.
Use when revising a TACAS (ETAPS) paper for a clear construction-or-analysis contribution on the first page, a stated soundness/completeness claim, honest benchmark evidence, category-appropriate structure (research vs tool vs case-study vs tool-demo), disciplined use of the 16-page (or 6-page) LNCS budget, and correct handling of double-blind wording for research papers.
Use when results exist but the accounting contribution is thin or implicit for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — turning findings into an explicit statement of what the field now knows, with credible bounds and implications. Frames the contribution; it does not build the mechanism (tar-theory-development) or position against the literature (tar-literature-positioning).
Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a The Accounting Review (TAR) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the editor and the (minimum two) reviewers across a multi-round developmental process, including identification, contribution, and data-authenticity demands. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (tar-review-process).
Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or predictions are the bottleneck for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — articulating why an accounting effect occurs and deriving testable predictions or model propositions. Builds the argument; it does not design identification (tar-methods) or run the estimation (tar-data-analysis).
Use when polishing the prose of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — front-loading the result, writing for an accounting audience, enforcing Chicago Manual of Style house conventions, the 150-word abstract, and full author anonymization for double-blind review. Polishes prose and style; it does not fix a thin contribution (tar-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (tar-submission).
Use when targeting The Accounting Review (TAR) or deciding whether an accounting 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 targeting The American Historical Review (AHR) or deciding whether a history manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the broad-significance argument bar, primary-source and historiographical expectations, Chicago house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting The Art Bulletin or deciding whether an art-history manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as the CAA generalist flagship across all periods and regions, the original-argument and close-visual-analysis bar, primary-source command, Chicago house style, image-rights expectations, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.