Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cc-workflow
Use when deciding which cc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript from scope check through peer-review revision. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
17 fixed3 passed either way2 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 17 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
During team review, a co-author points out that reviewers will scrutinize whether our patient-derived cell lines were authenticated by STR profiling and checked for mycoplasma contamination. Which specialized skill should be invoked?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Directs the user to cc-reporting-standards. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which cc- skill to use at your current stage* of a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) molecular / translational oncology manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as Cancer Cell, where the bar is a clear molecular mechanism validated across orthogonal systems (cells + in vivo + ideally human data), reported with STAR Methods rigor, framed for translational relevance without overclaiming.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure whether the story is a Cancer Cell paper at all | cc-scope-fit |
| Mechanism rests on one system (cells only / no in vivo / no human data) | cc-study-design |
| Controls, replicates, randomization, or blinding are unclear | cc-study-design |
| No Key Resources Table; cell lines unauthenticated; antibodies unvalidated | cc-reporting-standards |
n undefined, pseudo-replication risk, wrong test, error bars unlabeled | cc-statistics |
| Representative images with no quantification; multi-panel figure messy | cc-figures-tables |
| Need Summary / Highlights / eTOC blurb / graphical abstract | cc-structured-abstract |
| Missing IACUC/IRB approval, consent, biosafety, or data-availability statement | cc-ethics-registration |
| Prose overclaims; Results read like a lab notebook; weak Discussion | cc-writing-style |
| Need a cover letter framing fit and significance | cc-cover-letter |
| About to submit and need a final preflight | cc-submission |
| Reviewer reports arrived; need a point-by-point response | cc-peer-review-revision |
cc-scope-fit — confirm mechanism + translational relevance before investing morecc-study-design — design / audit orthogonal validation, controls, replicates, in vivo rigorcc-reporting-standards — STAR Methods, Key Resources Table, authentication, RRIDscc-statistics — define n, pick tests, correct for multiplicity, label error barscc-figures-tables — multi-panel mechanistic figures with quantification + image integritycc-structured-abstract — Summary, Highlights, eTOC blurb, graphical abstracttest cases passed, vs 3 / 22 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.