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

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.