Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when targeting ACM International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for mobile HCI.
Use when drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.
Use when building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).
Use when building the conceptual/theoretical argument of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript into a four-field contribution — whether the work is ethnographic, archaeological, biological, or linguistic. AA rewards a portable concept and reflexive argument over a bare finding or thick description alone. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses or write fieldnotes.
Use when drafting or polishing an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript so it reads across all four fields, follows AA house style (Chicago author-date; free-format submission accepted), fits the section word caps (Research Articles ≤ 8,000 words; abstract 200 words), and uses inclusive, care-ful language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
Use when building the central art-historical argument of an Art Bulletin article — the thesis, its stakes, and the chain from visual and documentary evidence to interpretation. The Art Bulletin rewards a fresh, well-warranted claim, not description. Shapes the argument; it does not generate evidence or do the looking.
Use when revising an Art Bulletin manuscript after a decision and writing the response to referees — converting double-blind reviewers without diluting the art-historical contribution, while keeping anonymity and the image/permissions plan on track. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new evidence.
Use when polishing prose and formatting citations for an Art Bulletin article to The Chicago Manual of Style — endnotes (not author-date), full credit-line captions, and consistent CAA-style formatting. Art-historical writing must be precise about objects and rigorous in its notes. Handles style and citation; it does not do the analysis.
Use when drafting ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) author responses, covering the double-anonymous rebuttal that must first survive the early-rejection gate and — distinctively — the criteria-bound revision-round summary-of-changes that maps every stated revision criterion to a concrete change and is re-checked against those criteria.
Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.