Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).
Use when targeting Annals of Mathematics (Ann. of Math.) or deciding whether a pure mathematics manuscript fits this Princeton/IAS venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, proof standard, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC) 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 applied security.
Use when targeting Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 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 NLP flagship.
Use when targeting Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ARA&A) or deciding whether a review proposal fits this invited, comprehensive, very-high-impact venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when designing the study for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — qualitative field studies (access, case logic, interviews, observation), behavioral experiments, surveys, historical/archival inquiry, or theory-laden archival designs, each with the ethics and site-anonymity groundwork done early. Designs the inquiry; it does not run the coding or estimation (aos-data-analysis).
Use when you need to understand how Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) evaluates a manuscript — triage by the joint Editors-in-Chief, double-anonymized review by interdisciplinary referees, the meaning of each decision type, and how to read the editor's letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (aos-rebuttal).
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an American Political Science Review (APSR) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymous review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the American Political Science Review (APSR) and which of its five tracks to target. APSR is the discipline's generalist flagship, so the test is general significance across subfields, not subfield novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.
Use when targeting ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) 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 architecture/systems/PL.