From progress-in-human-geography-skills
Routes 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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/progress-in-human-geography-skills:proghg-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It tells you **which proghg-* skill to use at the current stage** of a **review essay, theoretical/conceptual intervention, or progress report** aimed at *Progress in Human Geography* (PiHG) — **SAGE's** flagship **review and state-of-the-art** journal in human geography, founded **1977** (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). PiHG does **not** publish original empirical studies or detailed c...
This is the router. It tells you which proghg- skill to use at the current stage* of a review essay, theoretical/conceptual intervention, or progress report aimed at Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) — SAGE's flagship review and state-of-the-art journal in human geography, founded 1977 (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). PiHG does not publish original empirical studies or detailed cases. It publishes critical, theoretically-informed reviews of current philosophical, conceptual, theoretical, topical, methodological, ethical, and political debates, plus the famous commissioned progress reports that survey the development of subfields (economic, urban, political, cultural, feminist, development, more-than-human geographies). So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is scope a synthesis-worthy debate → enter via commission or submission → read the subfield critically → impose a conceptual organizing argument → engage traditions fairly and reflexively → land the PiHG voice → clear SAGE peer review → revise.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as PiHG and the artefact as a critical review / conceptual intervention, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at PiHG and not a sibling: the work appraises and reframes a body of scholarship rather than reporting its own findings; PiHG explicitly does not publish empirical results or detailed case studies (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); there is no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data (you read others' work critically); the contribution is a conceptual argument about a subfield's trajectory — where it is and where it should go — not a new estimate. If the user actually has original data and results, they want a primary-research outlet (Annals of the AAG, Transactions of the IBG, an empirical area journal), not PiHG — say so.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the debate is review-worthy / conceptually significant enough for PiHG | proghg-topic-selection |
| Need to pitch a review, or you are writing a commissioned progress report | proghg-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Reading is unsystematic; you fear missing a tradition or key intervention | proghg-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of works, not an argument about the subfield's development | proghg-organizing-framework |
| Coverage vs. selectivity, or fairness across theoretical traditions, feels off | proghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| Need a debate-mapping table or a conceptual figure | proghg-tables-figures |
| Prose is dense/jargon-heavy; a geographer outside the subfield can't follow | proghg-writing-style |
| Documenting scholarly apparatus, positionality, or a search account | proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility |
| Working with the editors on a commissioned report vs. a submitted review | proghg-editor-strategy |
| Ready to submit via SAGE ScholarOne; need a preflight | proghg-submission |
| Received editor/referee feedback on the review | proghg-revision |
proghg-topic-selection — confirm the debate is PiHG-scale (significant, contested, needs critical synthesis)proghg-proposal-and-commissioning — the commissioned-report vs. submitted-review intake routeproghg-literature-synthesis — read the subfield critically (coverage discipline across traditions)proghg-organizing-framework — impose the conceptual argument / spineproghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance — fairness, reflexivity, even-handed traditionsproghg-tables-figures — debate-mapping tables and the conceptual figureproghg-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible PiHG voice (abstract + intro last)proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility — scholarly apparatus, positionality, search accountproghg-editor-strategy — commissioned report vs. submitted review; what referees of a review checkproghg-submission — SAGE ScholarOne preflightproghg-revision — after the editor/referee letter
proghg-writing-styleis a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the conceptual argument and coverage settle. The route comes early — a progress report is commissioned and short, a review is submitted and longer, soproghg-proposal-and-commissioningprecedes the heavy reading.
A PiHG piece is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| commissioned progress report (annual subfield survey, short) | scope discipline within a tight word limit | proghg-proposal-and-commissioning |
| major review essay (submitted, broad subfield) | scope is large; needs a conceptual spine | proghg-organizing-framework |
| theoretical / conceptual intervention | the argument about where the field should go | proghg-organizing-framework |
| emerging-debate review (young, fast-moving) | is it significant/mature enough for PiHG yet? | proghg-topic-selection |
if editor_or_referee_letter: -> proghg-revision
elif ready_to_submit: -> proghg-submission
elif apparatus_or_positionality: -> proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility
elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible: -> proghg-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures: -> proghg-tables-figures
elif coverage_or_fairness_off: -> proghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list: -> proghg-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic: -> proghg-literature-synthesis
elif route_not_chosen: -> proghg-proposal-and-commissioning
else: -> proghg-topic-selection
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin progress-in-human-geography-skillsDetermines the correct PiHG intake route (commissioned progress report vs. submitted review/intervention) and shapes the proposal or report brief accordingly.
Routes manuscript work for Journal of Economic Geography submissions by sequencing specialized skills: topic selection, literature positioning, identification, model design, robustness checks, and rebuttal.
Routes authors through Annals of the AAG manuscript lifecycle by area and stage. Dispatches to sub-skills for topic, literature, theory, research design, and analysis.