Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/aos-workflow
Use when deciding which aos-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 14 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 23 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
16 fixed5 passed either way0 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our manuscript on performance measurement systems just received a revise-and-resubmit decision letter from the journal, and we need to map out how to organize our manuscript updates and construct our response to the reviewers' comments. Tell me which precise skill in the manuscript workflow sequence we should open to direct this work.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| recommends `aos-rebuttal` as the precise step to direct the revision | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This is the router. It never does the stage work itself; its only job is to name the one aos- skill you should open right now*.
Default target: Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) — the flagship interdisciplinary accounting journal, launched in 1976 by Anthony Hopwood and published by Elsevier (ISSN 0361-3682). AOS exists to study accounting as a social, organizational, behavioral and institutional phenomenon, not merely as an input to security prices. Its pages mix qualitative field studies, experimental/behavioral work, surveys, historical and critical scholarship, and archival designs that carry genuine organizational or social theorizing. What AOS is not is a capital-markets outlet: a JAR/JAE/TAR-style archival-financial-economics paper with no social or organizational theory is the journal's canonical desk reject. Every routing decision below therefore starts from which intellectual tradition your paper works in, because the rigor bar, exemplars, and reviewer pool differ sharply between a Bourdieusian field study and a judgment-and-decision-making experiment.
Current masthead (verified 2026-07-16): joint Editors-in-Chief Marcia Annisette (Schulich School of Business), Martin Messner (University of Innsbruck), and Hun-Tong Tan (Nanyang Technological University), supported by a large interdisciplinary editorial board. Submissions run through Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/AOS) under double-anonymized review. Editors and portal details change — re-check the official Elsevier/ScienceDirect pages before relying on any of this.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the question is about accounting's organizational/social life at all | aos-topic-selection |
| Data exist but no theoretical lens (or the lens is decorative) | aos-theory-development |
| Front end lists citations without joining an AOS conversation | aos-literature-positioning |
| Field access, case selection, experiment design, or ethics unsettled | aos-methods |
| Material collected; coding, analysis, or statistical treatment unclear | aos-data-analysis |
| Findings exist but the theoretical "so what" is thin | aos-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits (data-structure tables, cell means, figures) weak or absent | aos-tables-figures |
| Prose reads like a hypothesis-mill or buries the argument | aos-writing-style |
| Ready for Editorial Manager; need the preflight | aos-submission |
| Want to understand how AOS editors and reviewers will treat the paper | aos-review-process |
| Revise-and-resubmit received; must plan the revision and letter | aos-rebuttal |
aos-topic-selection — confirm the question belongs at the accounting–organization–society intersectionaos-theory-development — commit to a theoretical tradition and make it do real workaos-literature-positioning — enter a live AOS conversation (the journal has 50 years of its own canon)aos-methods — design the field study / experiment / survey / historical inquiry, with ethics settled earlytest cases passed, vs 9 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.