Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use before any writing begins to stress-test whether a result clears PNAS's bar — high quality and broad significance to a general scientific readership — and to make the realistic call between PNAS, Science/Nature, and a specialist field journal.
Use to choose the PNAS submission track — Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) vs Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper). Covers eligibility, the editor/member role, the discontinued and legacy tracks, and how to pick. Unique to PNAS.
Use to settle PNAS Nexus's open-access decisions — confirm the gold-OA model and the article processing charge (APC), check eligibility for waivers/discounts (low-/middle-income countries, Read & Publish, membership) and funder compliance, and choose the license (CC BY vs CC BY-NC). This is PNAS Nexus's signature pre-submission decision; it replaces flagship PNAS's Direct/Contributed track choice (PNAS Nexus has no such track).
Use to enforce PNAS Nexus's statistics and reproducibility reporting — n and replication, test choice and assumptions, effect sizes with uncertainty, multiple-comparison control, randomization/blinding, sample-size justification, and reproducible code. Also covers whether a Registered Report (Stage 1/2) is the right route for confirmatory work.
Use when building the evidence for an ACM PODC paper — where "evidence" is a proof, not a benchmark. Covers matching upper and lower bounds, tightness arguments, model and assumption stress-tests, adversary-strength calibration, and the honest, clearly-optional role of any simulation in a distributed-computing-theory paper.
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
Use when deciding whether a distributed-computing result belongs at ACM PODC or should be routed to DISC, SPAA, OPODIS/SIROCCO/SSS, STOC/FOCS/SODA, a systems venue (ICDCS/DSN/OSDI/NSDI), a blockchain-theory venue (AFT/FC), or a journal (JACM / Distributed Computing) — and how to avoid the PODC-vs-PODS naming trap by reasoning about the distributed model and the cost measure.
Use when designing or auditing the analytical "evidence" of an ACM PODS paper — worst-case and average-case analyses, matching upper and lower bounds, dichotomy completeness, correct complexity assumptions, and the occasional empirical validation when a theory paper claims practicality — matching the rigor to the shape of each theoretical claim.
Use when positioning an ACM PODS submission against the database-theory literature across PODS, ICDT, LICS, and the journals (TODS, LMCS, JACM, VLDBJ), writing delta-first contrast that compares results rather than cataloging citations, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling concurrent, arXiv-preprint, and prior-version overlap.
Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODS submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-anonymous review, the multi-cycle-per-year calendar, the two reviewing rounds within a cycle, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision with a shepherded revision, PACMMOD-track publication, and how PODS differs from SIGMOD's rounds and ICDT's process.