geb-workflow
GitHubGEB论文投稿工作流路由器，用于判断稿件当前阶段并推荐后续专用技能（如选题、写作、反驳等），不替代具体执行任务。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill geb-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "geb-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which geb-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
GEB Workflow Router (geb-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which geb- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Games and Economic Behavior (GEB).
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as GEB — the leading specialist game-theory journal, published by Elsevier and an official journal of the Game Theory Society (founded 1989 by Ehud Kalai; chief editor Hervé Moulin since 2021). GEB judges work on whether it advances the frontiers of game theory and its applications — theory, mechanism design, behavioral, and experiments — not general-economics interest alone. Its process is distinctive: the chief editor assigns each paper to one of seven Editors (your publicly known "Editor in Charge"), who routes it to an anonymous Advisory Editor and anonymous referees. About one-third of submissions are desk-rejected and only ~15% are eventually published. Re-verify volatile specifics (chief editor, the seven Editors, abstract cap, fees) on the official Guide for Authors; several are marked 待核实 in the source map.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?"
- The user hands over a draft and needs the current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between theory, experiment, writing, and response letters
- A GEB decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Result feels incremental / unclear it advances game theory itself | geb-topic-selection |
| Relation to the game-theory literature is fuzzy or undersold | geb-literature-positioning |
| The "so what for game theory" sentence is missing | geb-contribution-framing |
| Proofs are opaque, or assumptions/generality are under-examined | geb-identification-strategy |
| Experimental data / numerical examples need analysis or are under-powered | geb-data-analysis |
| Game trees, payoff matrices, or result tables are unclear | geb-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the model; abstract is over 250 words | geb-writing-style |
| Need a data/code-sharing plan (encouraged, not required at GEB) | geb-replication-and-data-policy |
| Want to understand the Editor-in-Charge review path before submitting | geb-review-process |
| Ready to submit via Editorial Manager; need a preflight + cover letter | geb-submission |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | geb-rebuttal |
Default order
geb-topic-selection— confirm the result advances game theory itselfgeb-literature-positioning— locate it against the game-theory frontiergeb-contribution-framing— state the one-sentence contribution to the fieldgeb-identification-strategy— assumptions, results, proof exposition, generalitygeb-data-analysis— experimental analysis / verified numerical examplesgeb-tables-figures— game trees, payoff matrices, clean result exhibitsgeb-writing-style— land the model for a general game-theory reader (abstract ≤250 words)geb-replication-and-data-policy— optional but recommended sharing plangeb-review-process— understand the Editor-in-Charge pathgeb-submission— Editorial Manager preflight + conference-version cover lettergeb-rebuttal— after the R&R
geb-writing-styleis a late-stage polish. Do not rewrite the introduction before the theorems and assumptions are settled — the statements will change.
Stage log
Keep this log with the manuscript and update it after each working pass; the first unresolved line is your route:
GEB stage log (✓ = settled, ? = open — first ? wins)
contribution one-line advance to game theory written out verbatim ..... [?]
positioning nearest frontier papers named + what you generalize ...... [?]
results theorems stated, assumptions listed, proofs readable ..... [?]
evidence experiment powered / numerical examples verified ......... [?]
exhibits game trees and payoff matrices self-contained ............ [?]
prose abstract ≤250 words; model reachable within intro ........ [?]
sharing data/code plan drafted (encouraged, not required) ........ [?]
process Editor-in-Charge path + desk-reject risks reviewed ....... [?]
submit Editorial Manager preflight; conference version flagged .. [?]
--- decision letter in hand? ignore every line above → geb-rebuttal ---
- "Is this big enough for GEB?" →
geb-topic-selection - "Who am I building on / generalizing?" →
geb-literature-positioning - "My proof is correct but unreadable" →
geb-identification-strategy - "My experiment may be under-powered" →
geb-data-analysis - "My abstract is 320 words" →
geb-writing-style - "There's a conference version of this paper" →
geb-submission - "Who actually decides on my paper?" →
geb-review-process - "I got a revise-and-resubmit" →
geb-rebuttal
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
geb-contribution-framingand submit a technically-correct result with no stated advance to game theory — desk-reject risk - Do not polish exhibits while the main theorem's assumptions are still moving
- Do not treat GEB like a general-economics top-5: the bar is advancing game theory, not broad policy interest
- Do not let
geb-rebuttaldraft a response letter before the revised manuscript exists
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:16
