cc-workflow
GitHubCancer Cell 投稿路由技能，根据稿件当前阶段或痛点（如范围、设计、统计、写作等）推荐对应的 cc-* 子技能，指导从选题到修回的完整流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "cc-workflow",
"description": "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."
}
Cancer Cell Workflow (cc-workflow)
Overview
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.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?"
- A draft arrives and you must diagnose the current bottleneck
- Work is thrashing between experiments, figures, and writing
- A decision letter / reviewer reports arrive and you must switch into revision mode
Routing table
| 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 |
Default order
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— definen, 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 abstractcc-ethics-registration— approvals, consent, biosafety, data-deposition statementscc-writing-style— Cell Press prose and claim calibration (polish stage)cc-cover-letter— significance / fit / suggested reviewerscc-submission— pre-submission preflightcc-peer-review-revision— after reviewer reports
cc-writing-styleandcc-structured-abstractare late-stage polish — do not finalize them while the mechanism or in vivo validation is still missing.
Decision shortcuts
- "It's only in cell lines" →
cc-study-design(add in vivo / human validation) - "Reviewers will ask if the cell line is authenticated" →
cc-reporting-standards - "I used n=3 wells from one experiment" →
cc-statistics(pseudo-replication) - "I have a beautiful blot but no densitometry" →
cc-figures-tables - "My title promises a therapy but I have no in vivo efficacy" →
cc-scope-fitthencc-writing-style - "No GEO accession yet" →
cc-ethics-registration/cc-submission - "Three reviewers, consultative cross-review" →
cc-peer-review-revision
Differences vs. JAMA-style clinical packs
If the work is a clinical trial or epidemiological cohort with patient-level outcomes as the core unit, a clinical-trial pack (CONSORT / STROBE / registration) fits better. Cancer Cell's unit is a mechanism validated across systems, not a trial endpoint.
Worked routing example
"We have RNA-seq showing MARK7 correlates with CAF activation in a patient cohort, plus a knockdown migration phenotype in one PDAC line. We want to submit to Cancer Cell."
Route it:
cc-scope-fit— a correlation + single-line phenotype is off-fit on both pillars; the mechanism is not established and there is no in vivo/orthogonal validation. Gate here first.cc-study-design— plan the missing spine: in vivo perturbation in an immunocompetent model, a second cell system, and a mechanistic intermediate linking MARK7 to the phenotype.- Only once that evidence exists do
cc-reporting-standards→cc-statistics→cc-figures-tablesapply; drafting front matter (cc-structured-abstract,cc-writing-style) before then is premature.
The router's job is to stop a promising-but-thin story from being polished into a confident desk reject.
Stage diagnosis cues
| What the user says | Likely stage | Route |
|---|---|---|
| "Is this even a Cancer Cell paper?" | Pre-scope | cc-scope-fit |
| "Reviewers will ask about in vivo" | Design gap | cc-study-design |
| "My Methods feel thin" | Reporting | cc-reporting-standards |
| "Is n=3 wells enough?" | Statistics | cc-statistics |
| "The blot has no quantification" | Display | cc-figures-tables |
| "The Summary buries the finding" | Front matter | cc-structured-abstract |
| "I have no GEO accession" | Ethics/deposition | cc-ethics-registration |
| "Final check before upload" | Preflight | cc-submission |
| "Three reviewers came back" | Revision | cc-peer-review-revision |
Evidence-spine manifest
Cancer Cell's unit is a mechanism validated across orthogonal systems. Track the spine as a
manifest and route on the first MISSING: front-matter polish is premature until cells +
in vivo + (ideally) human evidence converge on one mechanism.
evidence_spine:
mechanism: OK | UNCLEAR # molecular intermediate linking cause -> phenotype
cell_system_1: OK | MISSING
cell_system_2: OK | MISSING # orthogonal line / method, not a technical replicate
in_vivo: OK | MISSING # perturbation in an immunocompetent model
human_data: OK | MISSING # patient cohort / clinical specimens
rigor:
key_resources_table: yes | no # cc-reporting-standards
cell_line_authenticated: yes | no
n_defined_no_pseudorep: yes | no # cc-statistics
image_quantification: yes | no # cc-figures-tables
deposition:
geo_or_pride_accession: yes | no # cc-ethics-registration
route_rule: "first MISSING/UNCLEAR above -> its listed skill; do not draft Summary/Highlights until the spine is OK"
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
cc-scope-fit— editors triage on mechanism + translational fit first - Do not let
cc-figures-tablespolish panels beforecc-statisticshas fixednand tests - Do not let
cc-peer-review-revisiondraft a response before the revised experiments / text exist - Do not route to front-matter polish while the in vivo or human-validation spine is still missing
- Do not treat a presubmission inquiry as a substitute for the scope gate — run
cc-scope-fitregardless
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:26
