Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when deciding which English specialty clinical-medicine journal skill to invoke next, comparing fit across the 30-journal clinical-medicine roadmap, or routing a manuscript before venue-specific re-framing. Routes by specialty, study design (RCT / observational / diagnostic-accuracy / review), and evidence strength, and flags trial registration and the reporting checklist as prerequisites.
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-en-clinmed-journal-workflow/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 13% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 78% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 68% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 20% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 47% | 0% |
This is the routing skill for the specialty-clinical bundle. It does not replace a single-journal profile; it first classifies the study by specialty, study design, and evidence strength, then routes into the matching per-journal skill for fit and re-framing. It is a sibling to en-natsci-journal-workflow (which holds the general big-four and broad-specialty clinical flagships). These skills are venue-fit aids only — not clinical, diagnostic, or regulatory advice.
pediatrics, psychiatry, surgery, respiratory/critical care, nephrology, endocrinology/diabetes, hepatology/GI, allergy/immunology, rheumatology, stroke, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics/gynecology, or urology?
study, diagnostic-accuracy study, systematic review / meta-analysis, guideline / consensus, mechanistic/translational study, or narrative/invited review?
but not definitive result, a hypothesis-generating or exploratory finding, or a synthesis?
flagship), a sub-specialty community, or a general-medicine audience (route up to the big-four in the natural-science bundle)?
| Manuscript signature | Prefer skill | |---|---| | General internal-medicine trial / comparative effectiveness | jama-internal-medicine | | Oncology clinical trial / practice-changing | jama-oncology / annals-of-oncology | | Authoritative oncology review | nature-reviews-clinical-oncology | | Cardiology specialty study | jama-cardiology | | Neurology clinical study | jama-neurology | | Neuroscience-to-clinical brain disorders, mechanism + clinical | brain | | Cerebrovascular / stroke | stroke | | Pediatrics | jama-pediatrics | | Psychiatry / mental-health (clinical or population) | jama-psychiatry / the-lancet-psychiatry | | Surgery / perioperative outcomes | jama-surgery | | Respiratory / pulmonary / critical-care medicine | the-lancet-respiratory-medicine / american-journal-of-respiratory-and-critical-care-medicine | | Intensive / critical care | critical-care-medicine | | Diabetes / endocrinology (clinical or population) | the-lancet-diabetes-and-endocrinology / journal-of-clinical-endocrinology-and-metabolism / diabetologia | | Nephrology / kidney disease | journal-of-the-american-society-of-nephrology / kidney-international | | Liver disease / hepatology | journal-of-hepatology / hepatology | | Gastroenterology (clinical) | american-journal-of-gastroenterology | | Allergy / clinical immunology | journal-of-allergy-and-clinical-immunology | | Rheumatology / autoimmune | arthritis-and-rheumatology | | Public-health / population-health intervention | the-lancet-public-health | | Diagnostic imaging / imaging AI | radiology | | Anesthesiology / perioperative medicine | anesthesiology | | Obstetrics / gynecology | american-journal-of-obstetrics-and-gynecology | | Urology | european-urology |
| Confusable targets | Decision rule | |---|---| | A JAMA Network specialty title vs the general big-four (NEJM/JAMA/Lancet/BMJ in the natural-science bundle) | A practice-changing, broadly significant trial may belong at the general venue; a strong specialty-relevant result routes to the JAMA Network / Lancet specialty title. | | jama-oncology vs annals-of-oncology | Route by audience and society fit (JAMA Network vs ESMO) and re-check current scopes; both take high-quality oncology clinical research. | | journal-of-the-american-society-of-nephrology vs kidney-international | Both are top nephrology venues (ASN vs ISN); route by society fit and emphasis and re-check current scopes. | | journal-of-hepatology vs hepatology | EASL vs AASLD flagships; route by society fit and audience and re-check current scopes. | | the-lancet-psychiatry vs jama-psychiatry | Both are top psychiatry venues; route by family fit (Lancet vs JAMA Network) and the framing/audience. | | Specialty journal vs the-lancet-public-health | A population-health/policy intervention routes to public health; a disease-specific clinical result routes to the specialty journal. |
trial registration (number in the manuscript); systematic review → PRISMA; observational → STROBE; diagnostic accuracy → STARD. These are prerequisites, not nice-to-haves, at these venues.
observational study, which outranks a single-center case series; route the design to the venue that expects that level of evidence.
better served by the society specialty flagship than by a general journal that will desk-reject for limited general interest.
invited/commissioned — propose, do not submit unsolicited primary data.
authorship, data sharing) are gating items at every clinical venue.
submitting; never rely on a stale template.
text[Top journal skill] <skill-name> [Alt 1] <skill-name> (reason) [Alt 2] <skill-name> (reason) [Do not submit to] <journal> (one-line mismatch reason) [Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / cohort-STROBE / review-PRISMA / diagnostic-STARD> [Biggest current gap] evidence-strength / specialty-fit / registration / reporting-checklist / ethics / official requirements [Next step] invoke <skill-name> for single-venue fit and re-framing
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | pass→fail | 36,312 | 25,283 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,518 | 5,192 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→fail | 27,947 | 22,946 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,688 | 4,823 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→fail | 28,062 | 27,751 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,146 | 5,018 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 21,120 | 11,912 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,558 | 2,882 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 16,781 | 12,187 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,915 | 3,408 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 17,487 | 10,438 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,991 | 3,353 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 14,356 | 10,917 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,246 | 2,698 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 17,526 | 14,946 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,981 | 2,920 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 17,136 | 9,131 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,700 | 3,211 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 17,224 | 13,753 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,054 | 3,188 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 16,490 | 13,147 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,901 | 3,179 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 20,534 | 7,316 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,561 | 2,968 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 17,784 | 14,934 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,710 | 2,998 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 12,228 | 14,733 | +20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,026 | 2,925 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 16,527 | 19,468 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,867 | 2,903 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 26,055 | 8,329 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,265 | 3,182 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 17,797 | 13,029 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,796 | 3,013 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 17,702 | 12,552 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,056 | 2,983 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 15,246 | 11,591 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,710 | 2,830 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 17,428 | 8,018 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,033 | 3,090 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 18,975 | 14,068 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,205 | 3,112 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 27,976 | 14,525 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,917 | 3,264 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 27,786 | 5,924 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,986 | 2,729 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +65 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.