Anmath workflow
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Annals-of-Mathematics-Skills/skills/anmath-workflow
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill anmath-workflowAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when deciding which anmath-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing work on a pure-mathematics manuscript from scope check through major revision for an Annals of Mathematics submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.
SKILL.md
5.9 KB, ~1.3k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Annals of Mathematics Workflow (anmath-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which anmath- skill to use at your current stage* of a theorem-and-proof manuscript.
Default assumption: unless you say otherwise, the target is Annals of Mathematics, where the bar is significance + originality + a complete, correct, rigorously verified proof with clear exposition. The importance threshold is very high and acceptance is highly competitive.
When to trigger
- You ask "what should I do next?" with a math paper in progress
- You have a draft and need to find the current bottleneck (significance? a gap? exposition?)
- You are cycling between proof, writing, and referee response and have lost the thread
- You received a referee report from Annals and need to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the result clears the Annals importance bar / is in scope | anmath-scope-fit |
| Main theorem stated vaguely; significance/positioning unclear | anmath-results-framing |
| Proof works but the argument's architecture is not laid out | anmath-methods |
| Exposition is hard to follow; sectioning/notation/diagrams weak | anmath-figures |
| Long computations / auxiliary lemmas clutter the main line | anmath-supplementary |
| Prose is sloppy; "clearly"/"it is easy to see" hide steps | anmath-writing-style |
| Paper feels bloated or padded; every section not yet justified | anmath-length-management |
| Preparing the cover note to the editors | anmath-cover-letter |
| Ready to submit; need the final preflight | anmath-submission |
| Want to anticipate how an expert referee will probe the proof | anmath-referee-strategy |
| Received a report; need to revise and reply | anmath-revision |
Default order
anmath-scope-fit— confirm the result is important and original enough for Annalsanmath-results-framing— state the main theorem(s) precisely and position themanmath-methods— lay out the proof strategy, key lemmas, and where the difficulty liesanmath-figures— exposition and structure: sectioning, notation, statements-before-proofsanmath-supplementary— move auxiliary results / long computations to appendicesanmath-writing-style— eliminate gaps and "clearly"; tighten every claimanmath-length-management— confirm every section is necessary; cut bloatanmath-cover-letter— concise letter framing significance for the editorsanmath-submission— final preflight (format, TeX, MSC, references, arXiv)anmath-referee-strategy— stress-test the proof against expert scrutiny before sendinganmath-revision— after the report arrives
anmath-writing-styleandanmath-length-managementare late-stage polish; do not run them before the proof is actually complete and the architecture is fixed.
Decision heuristics
- "I am not sure this is big enough for Annals" →
anmath-scope-fit - "My main theorem is a paragraph, not a precise statement" →
anmath-results-framing - "The proof is right but readers can't see the plan" →
anmath-methods - "A referee would get lost in Section 3" →
anmath-figures - "I have a 6-page computation in the middle of the proof" →
anmath-supplementary - "I wrote 'it is easy to see' and it is not" →
anmath-writing-style - "The paper is 90 pages and I can't justify all of them" →
anmath-length-management - "I'm clicking submit tomorrow" →
anmath-submission - "I got a referee report" →
anmath-revision
Difference vs. a generic math-writing toolbox
A generic LaTeX/writing helper optimizes for readability alone. This stack is tuned to the Annals standard: the importance bar is unusually high, and a single hidden gap is fatal. Significance and complete rigor dominate every routing decision here.
Submission bundle layout
The final preflight (anmath-submission) checks a concrete file tree. A single hidden gap
is fatal at Annals, so the arXiv/journal package must let a referee verify the proof
end-to-end with nothing missing. Target layout:
paper-submission/
├── main.tex % single self-contained source; amsart or Annals class
├── main.pdf % compiled, matches .tex exactly
├── refs.bib % all cited works; MathSciNet-verified keys
├── figures/ % vector (.pdf/.eps); each referenced in text
│ └── fig-1.pdf
└── README.txt % MSC 2020 primary+secondary, arXiv id, prior-submission note
CHECK before upload:
[ ] main theorem stated precisely in the introduction, with hypotheses explicit
[ ] every lemma either proved here or cited to a verifiable source
[ ] no "clearly" / "it is easy to see" standing in for an unwritten step
[ ] appendices hold long computations; the main line stays readable
[ ] cover letter frames significance for the editors (anmath-cover-letter)
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
anmath-scope-fit— Annals desk-screens on importance first - Do not let
anmath-figurespolish exposition while a proof gap remains open - Do not let
anmath-revisiondraft a reply before you have actually fixed the text - Do not treat
anmath-supplementaryas a dumping ground — essentials stay in main text
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.