Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when judging whether a human-geography debate is a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG)-scale review topic — significant, contested, and genuinely in need of a critical, theoretically-informed synthesis — and framing the review's animating argument. Decides fit; it does not gather the literature (proghg-literature-synthesis) or pitch the editors (proghg-proposal-and-commissioning).
Use when targeting Progress in Aerospace Sciences or deciding whether an aerospace review article fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a review venue, the comprehensive-survey and synthesis bar, the not-primary-research scope, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting Progress in Energy and Combustion Science or deciding whether an energy/combustion review manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's review-only fit, the critical-synthesis-and-authority bar, comprehensiveness rigor, house style, the review-vs-primary-research routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when targeting PRX Quantum or deciding whether a quantum information science or quantum technology manuscript fits this APS open-access flagship venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
Use when analyzing and reporting results for a Psychological Science manuscript. The journal requires effect sizes with confidence intervals, full disclosure of exclusions/conditions/measures, and a clear confirmatory/exploratory split, with analysis scripts and data shared. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Use when computing effect sizes and fitting the meta-analytic model for a Psychological Bulletin manuscript — effect-size metrics, random-effects vs. fixed-effect choice, dependent effect sizes (RVE / multilevel), and heterogeneity (Q, I², τ², prediction interval). Guides the core synthesis; moderators and bias diagnostics live in psychbull-moderators-and-bias.
Use when deriving predictions from a Psychological Review theory and confronting them with existing data and rival models — the journal's substitute for an empirical results section. Develops the argument; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or set its scope and identifiability limits (psychrev-boundary-conditions).
Use when locating a Psychological Review manuscript within its theoretical conversation — naming the theories it extends and, above all, the rival models it must beat or subsume. Positions the theory; it does NOT build the model (psychrev-theory-construction) or run the head-to-head prediction contrast (psychrev-argument-development).
Use when anticipating how a Psychological Review manuscript will be evaluated — masked peer review, the kinds of decisions, article types (full article vs. Theoretical Note), and what reviewers at a theory journal actually probe. Explains the process; it does NOT write the response document (that is psychrev-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (psychrev-submission).
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review and supports honest Evidence for Practice — uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or mixed work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.