agentsclimarketplace

Prl workflow

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Physical-Review-Letters-Skills/skills/prl-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。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill prl-workflow

Assembled 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 prl-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from scope-fit through revision for a Physical Review Letters (PRL) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

SKILL.md

6.9 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Physical Review Letters Workflow (prl-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which prl- skill to use at your current stage*.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, the target is Physical Review Letters (PRL) — a short, high-impact Letter that must clear the importance + broad interest gate and fit the strict deductible length limit, with detail pushed to Supplemental Material. If the work is a solid but incremental or specialist advance, the right home is Physical Review A–E or Physical Review Research, and prl-scope-fit will say so.

When to trigger

  • User asks "what should I do next?" on a physics Letter
  • User drops a draft and needs the current bottleneck diagnosed
  • User is unsure whether the result is "PRL-worthy" or belongs in a specialized PR journal
  • The Letter is over the length limit and detail must be re-partitioned
  • User received an APS referee report and needs to switch into response mode

Routing table

Current symptomNext skill
Unsure if the result is important / broad enough for PRLprl-scope-fit
Result is real but the "why it matters to all physicists" is unclearprl-results-framing
Methods sprawl into the Letter; can't tell what to keep vs. moveprl-methods
Figures too dense / lead figure doesn't show the central resultprl-figures
Letter doesn't stand alone; reader needs the SM to follow itprl-supplementary
Prose is wordy, hedged, jargon-heavy, or not APS house styleprl-writing-style
Over the length / figure / equation / reference limitprl-length-management
Need a cover letter that justifies importance + broad interestprl-cover-letter
Ready to submit; need format / file / metadata preflightprl-submission
Choosing suggested/opposed referees; anticipating objectionsprl-referee-strategy
Received a referee report or editor decision; need to respondprl-revision

Default order

  1. prl-scope-fit — settle the importance + broad-interest gate first; redirect to PR A–E / PR Research if it fails
  2. prl-results-framing — lock the single central claim and its broad significance
  3. prl-methods — keep only what a physicist needs to trust the result; the rest goes to SM
  4. prl-figures — design the lead figure to convey the central result at a glance
  5. prl-supplementary — partition derivations / extended data into SM; the Letter must stand alone
  6. prl-writing-style — APS house style, concision, defined notation
  7. prl-length-management — fit the deductible limit; trim ruthlessly (do this AFTER content is stable)
  8. prl-cover-letter — argue the importance + broad-interest case to the editors
  9. prl-submission — final preflight (format, files, classification, metadata)
  10. prl-referee-strategy — suggested / opposed referees; pre-empt likely objections
  11. prl-revision — after the referee reports arrive

prl-writing-style and prl-length-management are late polish stages. Do not trim to the limit before the central claim and figures are stable, or you will cut the wrong material.

Decision heuristics

  • "Reviewer 2 will say 'why not Phys. Rev. B?'" → prl-scope-fit
  • "I can state the result but not why anyone outside my subfield cares" → prl-results-framing
  • "My Methods section is three paragraphs of apparatus detail" → prl-methods
  • "My lead figure has six panels and a 9-line caption" → prl-figures
  • "You can't understand Fig. 2 without reading the SM" → prl-supplementary
  • "I'm 600 words over and figures count against me" → prl-length-management
  • "The editor needs to be told why this is broad-interest" → prl-cover-letter
  • "Submitting tonight" → prl-submission
  • "Who should I suggest as a referee?" → prl-referee-strategy
  • "Three referee reports just landed" → prl-revision

Letter status board

A Letter's readiness is a two-column question: is the content settled, and does it fit the container? Fill this board before invoking prl-submission; any cell still marked OPEN routes you back to the named skill.

PRL STATUS BOARD                          verdict   owner skill
========================================  ========  =====================
GATE  importance + broad interest         OPEN      prl-scope-fit
      (fails → retarget PR A–E / PRR)
CLAIM one central result, stated for      OPEN      prl-results-framing
      physicists outside the subfield
BODY  methods trimmed to what earns       OPEN      prl-methods
      trust; remainder moved to SM
FIG   lead figure = central result        OPEN      prl-figures
      at a glance
SM    Letter stands alone; SM holds       OPEN      prl-supplementary
      derivations / extended data only
STYLE APS house style, notation defined   OPEN      prl-writing-style
FIT   inside the deductible length        OPEN      prl-length-management
      limit (figures/equations count)
CASE  cover letter argues importance      OPEN      prl-cover-letter
REFS  suggested / opposed referees named  OPEN      prl-referee-strategy
----------------------------------------  --------  ---------------------
all rows CLOSED → prl-submission preflight → submit
referee report arrives → prl-revision

Differences vs. specialized Physical Review journals

PRL and Phys. Rev. A–E / PR Research share APS production and rigor standards but differ on the gate:

  • PRL: importance + broad interest, communicated concisely. A correct-but-incremental result is rejected on breadth grounds even if flawless.
  • PR A–E / PR Research: thorough, archival, specialist-appropriate; length is generous and full methods belong in the body.

If prl-scope-fit returns a "specialist" verdict, retarget to the appropriate PR journal rather than fighting the breadth gate.

Anti-patterns

  • Do not skip prl-scope-fit — editors triage on importance/breadth first; a wrong-venue Letter wastes a submission cycle
  • Do not run prl-length-management before content is stable — you will cut load-bearing material
  • Do not let prl-supplementary become a dumping ground that the Letter silently depends on
  • Do not draft prl-revision responses before you have actually changed the manuscript

Durable norms only. Verify current word/figure/reference limits, formats, and policies on the official APS / PRL author page.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 327,132. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.