Phg workflow
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Progress-in-Human-Geography-Skills/skills/phg-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 phg-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 starting or navigating any Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) manuscript and you need the entry point. Routes to the right sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and whether the piece is a free-standing review article or a commissioned Progress Report. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
PiHG Workflow Router (phg-workflow)
The orchestrator for a Progress in Human Geography submission. Figure out the stage and the genre, then send the user to the matching skill. PiHG is the discipline's review and theory flagship — the router's first job is to make sure the piece is a synthetic, agenda-setting review, not an empirical study wearing a review's clothes. PiHG does not publish empirical results or detailed cases.
When to trigger
- Starting a new PiHG piece and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding whether you are writing a review article (open submission) or a Progress Report (commissioned)
- Unsure whether the topic is review-worthy at all (route to
phg-topic-selection) - Returning with a decision letter (route to
phg-rebuttal)
First question: is this even a PiHG piece?
Run the fit gate before routing anywhere else.
| Check | Pass condition | Route if it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Not empirical | The core is an argument about a literature, not new data or a single case | this is the wrong journal — stop |
| Review-worthy | The literature is large, live, and contested, with real stakes | phg-topic-selection |
| Has an intervention | You can name what the field is getting wrong and how you re-order it | phg-critical-intervention |
| Synthetic | The sources add up to one argument, not a list | phg-argument-synthesis |
If "not empirical" fails — the piece would be unchanged if you deleted the argument and kept the data — PiHG is the wrong venue; consider an empirical geography journal instead.
Second question: which genre?
| Genre | What it is | Route |
|---|---|---|
| Review article | Free-standing, unsolicited critical review (~4,000–8,000 words) | full default order below |
| Progress Report | Commissioned critical survey of a sub-field's recent work | same craft, but scope to the report's remit; confirm with the editor |
| PiHG Lecture / commentary | Invited; formats vary | confirm current practice on the SAGE page (phg-submission) |
Progress Reports are invited by the editors — you cannot submit one cold. If you have a report commission, the same skills apply, scoped to the agreed remit.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Is the topic review-worthy? → phg-topic-selection
What concept organizes it? → phg-theory-building
Where does it sit in the field? → phg-literature-positioning
Do the sources add to one arg? → phg-argument-synthesis
What is the critical move? → phg-critical-intervention
What is the forward agenda? → phg-contribution-framing
Do the exhibits do synthesis? → phg-tables-figures
Does it read as PiHG? → phg-writing-style
Ready to submit? → phg-submission
How will it be judged? → phg-review-process
Got an R&R / decision? → phg-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → theory-building → literature-positioning → argument-synthesis → critical-intervention → contribution-framing → tables-figures → writing-style → submission → review-process → rebuttal
Iterate: most essays loop theory ↔ synthesis ↔ intervention several times before writing-style.
Anti-patterns
- Treating PiHG as a place to publish an empirical study "framed as a review" — it is not
- Writing an annotated bibliography and calling it a review (no cumulative argument)
- Submitting something billed as a Progress Report without a commission
- Reviewing a settled, niche literature with no live debate or stakes
- Overrunning the short (~8,000-word inclusive) cap because a review "needs to be comprehensive"
Output format
【Genre】review article / Progress Report (commissioned) / lecture-commentary
【Stage】topic / theory / positioning / synthesis / intervention / framing / exhibits / writing / submit / review / rebut
【Fit gate】not-empirical? review-worthy? has-intervention? synthetic? [Y/N each]
【Route to】phg-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— systematic-review, bibliometric, and reference tooling for building a corpus../../resources/official-source-map.md— official SAGE/PiHG URLs behind every fact in this pack
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.