anmath-workflow
GitHubAnnals of Mathematics 投稿工作流路由器，根据稿件当前状态（如范围、证明、写作等）推荐下一步应调用的专用子技能，协助作者从选题到提交的完整流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill anmath-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "anmath-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which anmath-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing work on a pure-mathematics manuscript from scope check through major revision for an Annals of Mathematics submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
Annals of Mathematics Workflow (anmath-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which anmath- skill to use at your current stage* of a theorem-and-proof manuscript.
Default assumption: unless you say otherwise, the target is Annals of Mathematics, where the bar is significance + originality + a complete, correct, rigorously verified proof with clear exposition. The importance threshold is very high and acceptance is highly competitive.
When to trigger
- You ask "what should I do next?" with a math paper in progress
- You have a draft and need to find the current bottleneck (significance? a gap? exposition?)
- You are cycling between proof, writing, and referee response and have lost the thread
- You received a referee report from Annals and need to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the result clears the Annals importance bar / is in scope | anmath-scope-fit |
| Main theorem stated vaguely; significance/positioning unclear | anmath-results-framing |
| Proof works but the argument's architecture is not laid out | anmath-methods |
| Exposition is hard to follow; sectioning/notation/diagrams weak | anmath-figures |
| Long computations / auxiliary lemmas clutter the main line | anmath-supplementary |
| Prose is sloppy; "clearly"/"it is easy to see" hide steps | anmath-writing-style |
| Paper feels bloated or padded; every section not yet justified | anmath-length-management |
| Preparing the cover note to the editors | anmath-cover-letter |
| Ready to submit; need the final preflight | anmath-submission |
| Want to anticipate how an expert referee will probe the proof | anmath-referee-strategy |
| Received a report; need to revise and reply | anmath-revision |
Default order
anmath-scope-fit— confirm the result is important and original enough for Annalsanmath-results-framing— state the main theorem(s) precisely and position themanmath-methods— lay out the proof strategy, key lemmas, and where the difficulty liesanmath-figures— exposition and structure: sectioning, notation, statements-before-proofsanmath-supplementary— move auxiliary results / long computations to appendicesanmath-writing-style— eliminate gaps and "clearly"; tighten every claimanmath-length-management— confirm every section is necessary; cut bloatanmath-cover-letter— concise letter framing significance for the editorsanmath-submission— final preflight (format, TeX, MSC, references, arXiv)anmath-referee-strategy— stress-test the proof against expert scrutiny before sendinganmath-revision— after the report arrives
anmath-writing-styleandanmath-length-managementare late-stage polish; do not run them before the proof is actually complete and the architecture is fixed.
Decision heuristics
- "I am not sure this is big enough for Annals" →
anmath-scope-fit - "My main theorem is a paragraph, not a precise statement" →
anmath-results-framing - "The proof is right but readers can't see the plan" →
anmath-methods - "A referee would get lost in Section 3" →
anmath-figures - "I have a 6-page computation in the middle of the proof" →
anmath-supplementary - "I wrote 'it is easy to see' and it is not" →
anmath-writing-style - "The paper is 90 pages and I can't justify all of them" →
anmath-length-management - "I'm clicking submit tomorrow" →
anmath-submission - "I got a referee report" →
anmath-revision
Difference vs. a generic math-writing toolbox
A generic LaTeX/writing helper optimizes for readability alone. This stack is tuned to the Annals standard: the importance bar is unusually high, and a single hidden gap is fatal. Significance and complete rigor dominate every routing decision here.
Submission bundle layout
The final preflight (anmath-submission) checks a concrete file tree. A single hidden gap
is fatal at Annals, so the arXiv/journal package must let a referee verify the proof
end-to-end with nothing missing. Target layout:
paper-submission/
├── main.tex % single self-contained source; amsart or Annals class
├── main.pdf % compiled, matches .tex exactly
├── refs.bib % all cited works; MathSciNet-verified keys
├── figures/ % vector (.pdf/.eps); each referenced in text
│ └── fig-1.pdf
└── README.txt % MSC 2020 primary+secondary, arXiv id, prior-submission note
CHECK before upload:
[ ] main theorem stated precisely in the introduction, with hypotheses explicit
[ ] every lemma either proved here or cited to a verifiable source
[ ] no "clearly" / "it is easy to see" standing in for an unwritten step
[ ] appendices hold long computations; the main line stays readable
[ ] cover letter frames significance for the editors (anmath-cover-letter)
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
anmath-scope-fit— Annals desk-screens on importance first - Do not let
anmath-figurespolish exposition while a proof gap remains open - Do not let
anmath-revisiondraft a reply before you have actually fixed the text - Do not treat
anmath-supplementaryas a dumping ground — essentials stay in main text
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:23
