From prl-skills
Routes manuscript work for Physical Review Letters (PRL) from scope-fit through revision. Invokes specialized sub-skills based on current bottleneck.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/prl-skills:prl-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you **which prl-* skill to use at your current stage**.
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.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure if the result is important / broad enough for PRL | prl-scope-fit |
| Result is real but the "why it matters to all physicists" is unclear | prl-results-framing |
| Methods sprawl into the Letter; can't tell what to keep vs. move | prl-methods |
| Figures too dense / lead figure doesn't show the central result | prl-figures |
| Letter doesn't stand alone; reader needs the SM to follow it | prl-supplementary |
| Prose is wordy, hedged, jargon-heavy, or not APS house style | prl-writing-style |
| Over the length / figure / equation / reference limit | prl-length-management |
| Need a cover letter that justifies importance + broad interest | prl-cover-letter |
| Ready to submit; need format / file / metadata preflight | prl-submission |
| Choosing suggested/opposed referees; anticipating objections | prl-referee-strategy |
| Received a referee report or editor decision; need to respond | prl-revision |
prl-scope-fit — settle the importance + broad-interest gate first; redirect to PR A–E / PR Research if it failsprl-results-framing — lock the single central claim and its broad significanceprl-methods — keep only what a physicist needs to trust the result; the rest goes to SMprl-figures — design the lead figure to convey the central result at a glanceprl-supplementary — partition derivations / extended data into SM; the Letter must stand aloneprl-writing-style — APS house style, concision, defined notationprl-length-management — fit the deductible limit; trim ruthlessly (do this AFTER content is stable)prl-cover-letter — argue the importance + broad-interest case to the editorsprl-submission — final preflight (format, files, classification, metadata)prl-referee-strategy — suggested / opposed referees; pre-empt likely objectionsprl-revision — after the referee reports arrive
prl-writing-styleandprl-length-managementare late polish stages. Do not trim to the limit before the central claim and figures are stable, or you will cut the wrong material.
prl-scope-fitprl-results-framingprl-methodsprl-figuresprl-supplementaryprl-length-managementprl-cover-letterprl-submissionprl-referee-strategyprl-revisionPRL and Phys. Rev. A–E / PR Research share APS production and rigor standards but differ on the gate:
If prl-scope-fit returns a "specialist" verdict, retarget to the appropriate PR journal rather than fighting the breadth gate.
prl-scope-fit — editors triage on importance/breadth first; a wrong-venue Letter wastes a submission cycleprl-length-management before content is stable — you will cut load-bearing materialprl-supplementary become a dumping ground that the Letter silently depends onprl-revision responses before you have actually changed the manuscriptDurable norms only. Verify current word/figure/reference limits, formats, and policies on the official APS / PRL author page.
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin prl-skillsEvaluates whether a physics manuscript fits Physical Review Letters' broad-importance and cross-subfield significance criteria, including length limits, framing, and desk-reject heuristics.
Structures point-by-point responses to Physical Review Letters referee reports and editor decisions, covering revision, resubmission, and APS appeal routes.
Routes manuscript workflow decisions for PNAS submissions, selecting the appropriate specialized skill (fit, track, writing, figures, etc.) based on current stage.