From progress-in-human-geography-skills
Determines the correct PiHG intake route (commissioned progress report vs. submitted review/intervention) and shapes the proposal or report brief accordingly.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/progress-in-human-geography-skills:proghg-proposal-and-commissioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The topic passed `proghg-topic-selection` and you must decide *how* it enters PiHG
proghg-topic-selection and you must decide how it enters PiHGThis is the defining fork at PiHG — get it right or you write the wrong artefact. Unlike a pure commissioning journal (e.g. Annual Reviews) or a pure submission journal, PiHG runs both:
Decide the route first: a progress report is short, commissioned, part of a series, and surveys a year/period of a subfield; a review essay or intervention is longer, submitted, and makes a free-standing conceptual argument. They are different artefacts — do not draft a 1,500-word progress report and try to submit it as a review, or write an 8,000-word review essay expecting it to run as a progress report.
| Element | What it must do | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| The debate & animating argument | State the subfield and the argument about it (from proghg-topic-selection) | both |
| Why a synthesis is needed now | Theoretical turn / new work / political fault line; the cross-subfield payoff | both |
| The conceptual spine | The organizing argument you would impose — not a chapter list | both (compressed for reports) |
| Coverage signal | The positions and traditions you would engage (breadth evidence) | both |
| Provisional argument | Your read of where the field is and where it should go (the payoff) | both |
| Standing & reflexivity | Why you can review fairly, and how you handle your own work and positionality | both |
| Strand / route | Which content strand (Perspectives/Reviews/Opinions/Biography/Key Publication) or that it is a commissioned report | route choice |
【Route】commissioned progress report / submitted review-or-intervention
【Strand】Perspectives / Reviews / Opinions / Biography / Key Publication / progress report
【Debate & argument】<one sentence>
【Why now】<theoretical turn / new work / political fault line>
【Proposed spine】<the conceptual organizing argument in 2–3 sentences>
【Coverage signal】<positions + traditions signalling breadth>
【Provisional argument + agenda】<what the review will argue and where the field should go>
【Reflexivity note】<how the author's own work / positionality is handled>
【Source status】strand limits / route / editor contact re-confirmed on SAGE pages? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ proghg-literature-synthesis (begin systematic critical reading)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin progress-in-human-geography-skillsRoutes to the correct proghg-* sub-skill based on the current stage of a PiHG manuscript (review essay, theoretical intervention, or progress report). Invoke when sequencing the writing lifecycle from topic selection through revision.
Frames a review topic for the ARE Editorial Committee: how intake works, how to suggest a topic, and what a Committee-ready pitch contains.
Shapes proposals for Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) contributions by explaining proposal routes, content, and differences for invited/special-issue work.