proghg-workflow
GitHubPiHG论文工作流路由器，指导综述、理论干预或进展报告的撰写与修订。根据当前阶段症状（如选题、提案、文献综合、框架构建等），路由至对应的proghg-*子技能，确保符合SAGE期刊的批判性综述要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill proghg-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "proghg-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which proghg-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a review essay, theoretical intervention, or progress report from topic through revision for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
PiHG Workflow Router (proghg-workflow)
Overview
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.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a review essay, theory piece, or progress report
- A draft reads like a literature summary and needs a conceptual argument
- Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the intake route
- A PiHG editor/referee letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| 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 |
Default order
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.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting an empirical paper or a detailed case study — PiHG does not publish empirical results (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
- Treating the review as an annotated bibliography (no conceptual argument) — the cardinal PiHG failure
- Using the author's own line of work as the review's center of gravity (self-promotion)
- Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "identification" or "replication package" of your own — you read others' work critically
- Confusing PiHG with Annals of the AAG (primary research, four areas), Transactions of the IBG (primary + some review), or Antipode (radical geography)
Routing by article archetype
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 |
Minimal decision snippet
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
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:14
