Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when writing the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) rebuttal and the shepherd's description-of-changes — the short round-two response that corrects factual misreadings and supplies requested measurements, and the point-by-point revision record a conditional-acceptance shepherd checks before final acceptance.
Use when writing or auditing the related-work and positioning of an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) systems paper — covering the systems literature lanes, positioning against OSDI/SOSP/NSDI/EuroSys/FAST, writing delta-first comparisons, and keeping self-citation double-blind.
Use when building the theoretical argument of a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript into a contribution of general interest — whether the work is formal/game-theoretic, empirical with explicit mechanisms, interpretive, or normative. BJPS rewards a clear, portable argument over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
Use when polishing the prose of a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — a front-loaded research question, disciplined accounting terminology, the ≤300-word abstract that states question/predictions/method/findings/implications, and CAR Style Guide conventions (footnotes not endnotes, author-date references on a new page). Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (car-submission).
Use when polishing the language and rhetoric of a 《财经研究》 (Journal of Finance and Economics) manuscript — eliminating empty-significance phrases, fixing vague policy talk, replacing method-flexing with mechanism, and aligning tense / person / hedging with CSSCI house style.
Use when revising a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay after a decision and writing the response to readers and editors. CI acceptance typically follows author revisions, and the editors-in-chief read closely, so the revision must strengthen the intervention and the response must address every point without diluting the argument. Structures the revision and response; it does not fabricate new readings or evidence.
Use to situate a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay within the conversations it enters across the arts and humanities. CI is interdisciplinary, so positioning means naming the critical and theoretical debates the essay joins — across literature, art, film, philosophy, politics, history — and the precise place where it intervenes, not a discipline-internal literature review. Frames the stakes; it does not write the prose.
Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay so it meets the journal's bar for ambitious, lucid critical writing and fits the word limit (articles ≤ 9,500 words including discursive notes and all bibliographical information; Critical Responses ≤ 3,000; Reviews ≤ 500). Tightens style and discipline; it does not invent argument or evidence.
Use when the policy-implication / 启示 section of a 《中国工业经济》 (China Industrial Economics) manuscript is vague. Forces ACTIONABLE recommendations — who, at which node, does what — derived from the findings and heterogeneity. This concreteness is the key difference from 《经济研究》, where implications stay at the significance level.
Use when revising a CIKM manuscript for the tri-community readership — writing an opening that lands with IR, data-mining, and knowledge-management reviewers simultaneously, compressing into appendix-inclusive page budgets, keeping claims inside the evidence, and maintaining double-blind and disclosure-compliant prose.