Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cell-workflow
Use when deciding which cell-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for Cell (Cell Press). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Passed 23 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 23 without it.
and 13 more in the full report
14 fixed9 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our draft reference list is numbered by order of appearance (e.g., [1], [2], [3]), which is typical for Science. We are ready to prepare the final submission package. Which module manages transforming reference citations?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Routes the user to `cell-citation`. | Missed | Passed |
| States that Cell uses author-date citation formatting rather than numbered citations. | 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 cell- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Cell (Cell Press).
Default assumption: unless the user states otherwise, the target is Cell (the flagship), not Molecular Cell, Cell Reports, Cell Reports Medicine, Developmental Cell, or other Cell Press titles. The family shares STAR Methods, Highlights, eTOC, and Graphical Abstract conventions, but differs sharply on scope and breadth — flag the difference if the user names a sibling.
Cell does not publish a single striking observation. It publishes a complete, mechanistic, hypothesis-driven story: a conceptual advance supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that converge on a mechanism. Descriptive or single-result papers are desk-rejected. Route to cell-fit first, always.
Cell editors reject most submissions before review. The bar is conceptual advance + mechanistic completeness, not technical correctness alone. The first question is never "is the science right?" — it is "is this a complete, mechanistic story a broad life-sciences readership will care about?" Route to cell-fit first.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Not sure it's a complete, mechanistic, broad-interest story | cell-fit |
| Story is solid but the arc/narrative is fragmented | cell-framing |
| No Highlights / eTOC blurb / Graphical Abstract | cell-highlights |
| Abstract (Summary) is long, structured, or under-quantified | cell-summary |
| Main text wanders; length/structure off; Discussion bloated | cell-writing |
| Figures over budget; fonts/colors/stats reporting off | cell-figures |
| No Key Resources Table / Resource Availability incomplete | cell-star-methods |
| No data/code deposition plan or accessions | cell-data |
| References not in Cell author–date style | cell-citation |
| About to submit; need a preflight + cover letter | cell-submission |
| Received reviews / a revision decision | cell-rebuttal |
test 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.