Skill UI

This tool assists researchers in structuring academic papers by mapping specific claims across different sections (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion) to required external citations (BibTeX keys). It enforces citation density rules and ensures the correct role alignment (e.g., background, comparison, limitation) before the actual drafting process, guaranteeing that every core claim is properly supported and distributed.

This skill provides explicit, pedagogical instruction on complex CrossFrame concepts. It is designed to move beyond simple definitions by structuring the output into plain language explanations, conceptual mapping, common misreading boundaries, real-world signals, and practical exercises. It is ideal for users who need deep, structured, and comprehensive understanding of complex theoretical frameworks.

This guide teaches writers how to move beyond a literature review to effectively position their argument within an ongoing academic 'conversation.' It outlines the structural map required: identifying the core intellectual debate, pinpointing the existing assumptions (standing view), defining the gap or contradiction (pressure point), and clearly stating the essay's unique contribution (move) and potential implications (payoff). Ideal for advanced academic writing, critical theory, and interdisciplinary research.

A comprehensive guide for translating complex, real-world management settings into formal, rigorous mathematical models suitable for high-level academic journals. It provides a systematic framework (Situational Element $\rightarrow$ Model Element Mapping) for developing optimization, game, and data-driven models, ensuring that the model structure, assumptions, and novelty are explicitly defensible against academic critiques.

A structured guide for vetting academic manuscripts, ensuring the topic aligns with the target journal’s applied modeling mission. It guides researchers through three core checks: real-world management problems, methodological incremental value, and practical decision-making outcomes. It also provides guidance on distinguishing between different academic fields and preventing submission errors.

This guide outlines the canonical structure for high-level legal scholarship, following the Harvard Law Review (HLR) model. It mandates a progression through four parts: mapping the current doctrine, diagnosing its failure using a theory, proposing a specific prescription (reform), and finally adjudicating the strongest counterarguments. It ensures the argument is logical, earned, and highly persuasive.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to top-tier security conferences (e.g., IEEE S&P). It details best practices for constructing the 'Related Work' section, focusing on defining a clear 'security delta' statement, mapping coverage across multiple attack vectors, managing resubmission overlaps (40% rule), and verifying citation attribution using tools like dblp and IEEE Xplore.

This guide provides expert advice on structuring the literature review for top-tier finance journals (e.g., JFE). It teaches authors to move beyond simple chronological listing, instead mapping the core academic debates, pinpointing the exact boundaries of the closest existing work, and articulating concrete, theoretically motivated gaps that the new research fills. This is essential for convincing domain experts of novel contribution.

This guide provides a structured framework for revising a manuscript after a 'revise-and-resubmit' (R&R), particularly for multi-paradigm fields like communication studies. It focuses on strategic academic writing: mapping conflicting reviewer demands (e.g., post-positivist vs. critical), managing the strict page budget (e.g., 35-page limit), and structuring the response memo to the editor-in-chief. It emphasizes framing the response as a principled trade-off rather than simply adding content.

This tool guides the process of positioning a comprehensive review essay within a highly technical and debated academic field. It helps users define the precise scope (corpus boundaries), map the major scholarly camps and core disagreements, and strategically locate their own intervention point, ensuring the review reads as authoritative and current.

This skill guides the construction of complex legal arguments, adhering to the standard persuasive arc: doctrine → theory → normative. It ensures the writing systematically moves from mapping existing law (the problem) to developing a conceptual framework (the why) and finally proposing actionable reforms (the fix). It is essential for building a rigorous, logical, and comprehensive academic argument.