Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when targeting Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) or deciding whether a game-theory manuscript or its application 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 executing and reporting the analysis for a Global Change Biology (GCB) manuscript — mixed/hierarchical models, time-series and spatial analysis, meta-analysis, and model evaluation with honest uncertainty. GCB reviewers and data archiving demand reproducible, well-quantified inference. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Use to understand how a Global Change Biology (GCB) manuscript is judged — high desk-rejection screening for scope and significance, expert single-anonymous peer review with 2–3 reviewers, and the decision categories. Sets expectations and informs preparation; it does not contact editors or predict outcomes.
Use when deciding whether a research idea fits Global Change Biology (GCB) and how to frame its significance. GCB wants a mechanistic link between a global-change driver and a biological response, of broad relevance across systems. Tests fit and sharpens the question; it does not generate data or guarantee acceptance.
Use when a Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) manuscript involves experimental data or numerical illustration — analyzing strategic-game experiments and building verified worked examples. Adapts analysis to GEB's game-theory nature, where data supports the theory rather than carrying a causal claim.
Use when the analytical core of a Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) manuscript is the bottleneck — assumptions, theorem statements, proof exposition, and generality for a game-theory paper (and the experimental-identification analogue for behavioral work). Stress-tests the argument's correctness, tightness, and readability.
Use when you need to understand how Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) actually evaluates a paper — the Editor-in-Charge model, anonymous Advisory Editors and referees, desk-reject and acceptance odds — so you can target the right audience and set expectations. Explains the process; it does not draft content.
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript so it survives expert, interdisciplinary review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Use when defending the research design of a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript — quantitative causal inference, qualitative case work and process tracing, experiments and surveys, or mixed-methods integration. GEC welcomes methodological pluralism but judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
Use to understand how Global Environmental Change (GEC) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymized review, editorial screening for scope and social-science fit, the role of multiple external reviewers, and the decision categories. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.