The orchestrator for a Social Forces submission. Figure out the stage, then send the user to the matching skill. SF is a general social-science journal (centered on sociology, published by Oxford University Press for UNC Chapel Hill) with a reputation for methodological rigor. Two structural facts shape every routing decision: the 10,000-word cap includes the reference list, and exhibits are capped at 10 tables and figure panels.
sf-rebuttal)| Situation | Route to |
|---|---|
| Unsure the question matters beyond your subfield | sf-topic-selection |
| Strong subfield lit but no general-audience framing | sf-literature-positioning |
| A finding without a portable argument | sf-theory-building |
| Identification / case-selection / design worries | sf-research-design |
| Over 10,000 words with references counted | sf-writing-style (trim) |
| More than 10 tables and figure panels | sf-tables-figures (cut/consolidate) |
Idea / fit? → sf-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → sf-literature-positioning
What's the portable argument? → sf-theory-building
Is the design defensible? → sf-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → sf-data-analysis
Are the exhibits within 10 panels? → sf-tables-figures
Does it read for a general audience? → sf-writing-style
Data availability statement ready? → sf-data-and-transparency
How will it be judged? → sf-review-process
Ready to submit? → sf-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → sf-rebuttal
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → data-and-transparency → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most SF papers loop theory ↔ design ↔ analysis several times, then spend real effort trimming prose (references count!) and exhibits (10-panel cap) before writing-style and submission.
When a user arrives mid-stream with a complaint rather than a stage, route on the symptom:
| User says | Likely real problem | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| "Reviewer called it descriptive" | Missing portable argument | sf-theory-building |
| "It's 1,500 words over" | References counted late | sf-writing-style |
| "Reviewer doubts the causal claim" | Identification gap | sf-research-design |
| "Feels too niche for SF" | General-significance gap | sf-topic-selection |
Worked vignette (illustrative): a user brings a clean networks analysis but a referee wrote "elegant
method, unclear social question." That is not a methods problem — route first to sf-topic-selection
and sf-theory-building to surface the substantive payoff, then back to sf-tables-figures to ration
the panels, only afterward to sf-submission.
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the social mechanism, data scope, identification or interpretation, and contribution to a wider literature; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: social-science reviewers who want generalizable social-process evidence across sociology, demography, and policy-adjacent topics.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Fit】general social-science significance clear? [Y/N]
【Format risk】words (incl. refs) ≤ 10,000? panels ≤ 10? [Y/N]
【Route to】sf-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
../../resources/external_tools.md — sociology data + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md — official Social Forces URLs behind every fact in this pack