claude-code-my-workflow skills

Commit the current work — runs the quality, consistency and passport gates, branches off main if needed, stages specific files, and writes a commit whose subject states what is now true. Pushes and opens a pull request only with --pr or when the user asks; never merges — a merge happens only when the user explicitly says to merge. Use ONLY on explicit commit intent — user says "commit", "let's commit this", "open a PR", or prefixes with `/commit`. Do NOT auto-invoke on vague end-of-task phrases ("we're done", "wrap up") — those require explicit confirmation first. Never force-pushes or skips hooks.

Scaffold a research grant proposal (NSF, NIH, ERC, or foundation) by composing existing primitives — pulls identification strategy from an `/interview-me` spec, delegates the data-management plan to `/data-management-plan` and the facilities statement to `/capture-environment`, and emits a funder-requirements checklist. Use when user says "draft a grant", "write a proposal", "NSF proposal", "NIH aims", "ERC application", "foundation grant", "specific aims", or "scaffold a grant proposal". NOT a submission tool — produces a draft the user uploads to the sponsor's portal themselves.

Turn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit findings, or a critique you did not write yourself, especially when the reviewer is a model or when the volume is too large to check by feel.

Qualify a check before it is allowed to clear anything — prove it can detect the failure it is meant to catch. Seeds known defects into a copy of a real artifact plus a clean control, runs the checker, and reports recall and false-positive rate into a qualification ledger. Use when the user says "does this check work", "qualify the gate", "test my reviewer", "seed defects", "vaccinate", "qualify the checks", "can I trust this review", "does it pass for the right reason", or before relying on any automated check or referee simulation for a decision that matters. NOT a code fixer and NOT a reviewer itself — it grades the grader.

Stress-test a finding against the choices you did not make. Enumerates the discrete forks a competent analyst could have taken (measure definition, sample filter, control set, clustering level, weighting, functional form), runs the specification grid, and reports the distribution rather than a point estimate — then attacks the identifying assumption with named, computable sensitivity statistics. Use when the user says "is this robust", "challenge this result", "specification curve", "multiverse", "how sensitive is this", "what if I'd used a different measure", "stress-test my estimate", or before a result becomes a headline claim. NOT a reviewer of prose or code — it challenges the CLAIM.

Interactive interview that formalizes a fuzzy research idea into a structured spec (RQ, hypotheses, identification, data needs, empirical strategy). Use when user says "interview me", "help me think through this idea", "I have a half-baked idea", "formalize this into a project", "walk me through framing a study". Multi-turn Q&A; saves spec to disk. NOT for lit review (`/lit-review`) or ideation from scratch (`/research-ideation`).

Adversarial Quarto-vs-Beamer parity QA. A critic agent compares the Quarto HTML render to the Beamer PDF benchmark for content/visual parity; a fixer agent applies fixes; loops until APPROVED or two consecutive rounds turn up nothing new (fallback cap 5 rounds). Use when user says "qa the quarto", "check parity", "does the html match the pdf?", "quarto matches beamer?", or after a translate-to-quarto run. Requires both the `.qmd` rendered and a `.pdf` benchmark.

Render Quarto `.qmd` slides to HTML and sync to `docs/` for GitHub Pages. Use when user says "deploy", "publish the slides", "ship to pages", "push the lecture live", "render and publish", or after Quarto edits that need to go public. NOT for local Quarto render only — use `quarto render` directly for that.

Generate a structured response-to-referees document from a referee report and the revised manuscript. Maps each referee comment to the specific revision, classifies coverage (addressed / partially / deferred / disagreement), and drafts polite but firm responses. Use during the R&R (revise-and-resubmit) stage of paper revision.

Run Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) on a draft or a block of text with factual claims. Spawns the `claim-verifier` agent in a fresh context (never a conversation fork) so it never sees the draft — then reports which claims are supported, contradicted, or unverifiable. Use when user says "verify these citations", "check the claims in X", "did I hallucinate anything", "fact-check this draft", "run CoVe on this", or after any text generation that asserts facts about papers, datasets, or numerical results. NOT for style/grammar review (use `/proofread`) or substance review (use `/review-paper`).

Compile a Beamer LaTeX slide deck with XeLaTeX (3 passes + bibtex). Use when user says "compile", "build the slides", "rebuild the PDF", "run latex", "render the tex", or asks why a `.tex` file isn't producing a PDF. Operates on `Slides/*.tex`.

Holistic pedagogical review of a lecture deck (`.qmd` or `.tex`). Checks narrative arc, prerequisite assumptions, worked examples, notation clarity, and deck-level pacing. Use when user says "pedagogy review", "does this teach well?", "is the flow right?", "will students follow?", "review the narrative", or before teaching a deck for the first time. Read-only; produces a report.

Mechanize Pattern 15 — the seven-pass adversarial review protocol for academic manuscripts. Spawns 7 fresh-context subagents in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations), then synthesizes a prioritized revision checklist. Use for submission-ready or R&R-stage papers where single-pass review isn't enough.

Validate bibliography entries against citations in all lecture files. Structural checks (missing/unused entries, malformed fields) by default; `--semantic` adds citation-drift detection, DOI verification, and style-consistency checks.

Create a new Beamer lecture `.tex` from source papers and materials, with notation consistency checks and the project's preamble wired in. Use when user says "create a lecture on X", "new lecture from these papers", "start a deck on topic Y", "scaffold a new Beamer file", "build me a lecture from these PDFs". Scaffolds the full deck — NOT for compiling existing `.tex` (use `/compile-latex`).

Triage academic email and calendar (Gmail / Google Calendar via the session's MCP) into a prioritized digest plus a referee-obligations tracker — classifying referee requests, R&R and editor correspondence, co-author threads, seminar and conference invites, and grant/admin deadlines, and proposing a human-gated action for each (draft reply, calendar hold, scaffold a project, snooze). Use when user says "triage my inbox", "check my academic email", "what needs my attention this week", "go through my mail", or when run as a scheduled routine. NEVER auto-sends or auto-accepts anything.

Prove that the file you are about to send, publish, or hand off IS the thing you mean — before it leaves your hands. Rebuild from source, check integrity, diff the derived artifact against its source, and require the recipient to echo what they received. Use before sending a paper/PDF for review, shipping a release or replication package, handing files to a coauthor or collaborator, uploading anything to an external reviewer or model, or publishing. Prevents an entire review/QA cycle from being spent on defects that exist only in the artifact, not in the work.

Run an external frontier-model referee (Claude Code -> a different vendor's frontier model via the Oracle CLI) on a paper, proof, estimator, or replication package -- and adjudicate what comes back. Use when the user says "send this to oracle", "get an external review", "run a referee round", "deep-check this proof", or before a submission when an independent second opinion is worth more than another in-house pass. Never launches bare: brief first, evidence-forcing prompt, coverage manifest, then CONFIRMED/REFUTED/DOWNGRADED triage.

Structured literature search + synthesis with citation extraction, thematic clustering, and gap identification. Use when user says "find papers on X", "do a lit review", "what's the literature on...", "summarize what we know about...", "where's the gap in this field", "review recent work on Y". Produces a written review with BibTeX-ready citations. Uses WebSearch/WebFetch for recent work.

Keeps a project's to-do list and memory in GitHub issues — files each finding (from a review, an audit, or the user) as its own issue without duplicates, lists the open issues that bear on the current work, and closes an issue with a comment recording what was wrong, what was tried, what worked, and how it was fixed. Use when review findings or a list of problems should become tracked work (a paper's misleading claims, a codebase's bugs, improvements for later), when starting or resuming work and deciding what to do next, or when a fix has landed and its issue should be closed with a record. Needs the GitHub CLI; warns before posting to a public repository.

Compare two implementations of the same thing — a port (R↔Python↔Stata), a reimplementation, a replication package, a refactor, or a new version against the old — so that agreement means something. Freeze inputs first, inventory every expected output, test the comparator itself, compare every channel (not just the headline number), and give each divergence a stable ID and a smallest witness. Use for cross-language parity, replication, upgrade/regression gates, or whenever "the numbers match" is about to license a claim.

Enforce the replication-protocol.md rule by cross-checking numeric claims in a manuscript against the actual R / Stata / Python outputs. Report PASS/FAIL per claim against tolerance thresholds. Use before submission and before releasing a replication package.

Adversarial visual-layout audit of a Quarto `.qmd` or Beamer `.tex` deck. Flags overflow, font inconsistency, box fatigue, spacing, and alignment issues. Use when user says "visual audit", "check the layout", "does this overflow?", "look for visual issues", "audit the slides", or after reworking a deck's appearance. Does NOT check writing or pedagogy — pair with `/proofread` or `/pedagogy-review`.

Assemble a submission-ready replication package to the AEA Data and Code Availability Standard (DCAS) / openICPSR / Social Science Reproduction Platform expectations — standard replication README, dataset manifest, computational-requirements capture, a Table/Figure → script:line map, and a confidential-data deposit plan. Use when user says "build the replication package", "prepare the openICPSR deposit", "make the AEA data and code package", "DCAS compliance", "assemble the deposit for the journal", or after a paper is accepted and the journal's data editor needs the package. NOT a numeric verifier — it calls /audit-reproducibility to confirm claims reproduce before packaging.