Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when positioning a Mathematical Finance (Wiley) manuscript against the financial-mathematics frontier — stake the methodological contribution against prior stochastic-analysis, pricing, and control results, citing the precise theorem you sharpen, generalize, or supersede.
Use when navigating the Mathematical Finance (Wiley) review process — single-blind editor screening, associate-editor handling, and referees who verify proofs line by line. Explains what reviewers at this theory venue check first, common desk-screen failure patterns for theorem-first papers, and how to read review-stage signals.
Use when choosing or sharpening a problem for Mathematical Finance (Wiley) — tests whether the question is a methodologically novel, rigorously tractable contribution to financial modelling (stochastic analysis, pricing, risk, portfolio, microstructure) rather than a routine computational application to data.
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Management Science (INFORMS) manuscript — proving and numerically verifying analytical results, or estimating and validating empirical models (identification, robustness, inference) to the standard of the relevant Department, and preparing a Data-and-Code-Disclosure-ready replication package. It executes; it does not design the study (mgsci-methods) or frame the contribution (mgsci-contribution-framing).
Use to understand how Management Science (INFORMS) review and decisions work — the Department/area-editor desk screen, double-anonymized refereeing, the cross-department fit bar, official turnaround targets, and how to read a decision letter — before or after submitting. It explains the process; it does not draft the response (mgsci-rebuttal).
Use when shaping or stress-testing a research question for Management Science (INFORMS) — confirming the decision-relevance bar, choosing the right Department lane (analytical vs empirical), and testing fit against sister INFORMS journals (Operations Research, M&SOM, Marketing Science) so the paper is not desk-rejected as "better suited elsewhere".
Use when building a MICRO paper's related-work coverage and positioning — sweeping the four-venue architecture literature plus journals and industry disclosures, differentiating by mechanism structure and cost rather than by numbers, obeying MICRO's all-author citation format, and verifying venue attribution via dblp before citing.
Use when reasoning about how a MICRO submission is judged — the double-blind HotCRP pipeline from the April deadline through the June rebuttal/revision window to the early-July notification, what reviewers score in a microarchitecture paper, the professional-conduct rules, and how the new Industry Track review differs.
Use when deciding whether a project belongs at MICRO (IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture) or should route to ISCA, HPCA, ASPLOS, DAC/ICCAD, SC, or MLSys — testing whether the mechanism truly lives inside the machine, gauging the MICRO evidence bar, and weighing the main track against the new Industry Track.
Use when targeting Mind or deciding whether an analytic philosophy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a leading generalist journal in the analytic/UK tradition, the argument-rigor and originality bar, dialectical-engagement expectations, house style (full-length articles plus critical notices) and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.