jjfroehlich
- 10 skills
- 0 followers
- 21 hours ago last updated
- ▌ Grant Writing · jjfroehlich bundleUse when the user is planning, drafting, revising, or reviewing a grant or fellowship application, including specific aims, project summaries, significance/innovation/approach sections, funder-fit checks, budget-feasibility alignment, risk/alternative plans, resubmissions, interviews, or reviewer-facing funding narratives. Trigger only when the artifact or decision is part of a funding mechanism; for manuscript peer review, journal submission, general prose editing, or career materials without a funding context, use a different skill.
- ▌ Career Development · jjfroehlich bundleUse this skill when a scientist needs stage-specific career help with advisor or lab choice, PhD/postdoc/faculty applications, CVs, resumes, cover letters, recommendation-letter scaffolds, referee evidence packets, interviews, offers, startup negotiation, academia-to-industry transitions, job ad interpretation, networking, or a concrete career-path decision. Trigger when the input is a career artifact, opportunity, role comparison, application package, or personal career constraint. Do not trigger for manuscript, grant, figure, project-strategy, journal-selection, or lab-management tasks unless the main issue is the user's own career decision.
- ▌ Scientific Writing · jjfroehlich bundleUse only when the primary requested output is audience-facing scientific prose or argument. Do not use for computational or analysis plans, pipeline or implementation documentation, README files, code comments, object or variable naming, or script terminology merely because they describe scientific work. Trigger for drafting, diagnosing, or revising manuscripts, theses, abstracts, introductions, results, discussions, conclusions, figure legends, contribution statements, acknowledgements, paper outlines, or reviewer-facing passages; and for section structure, flow, claim calibration, compression, or publication-ready wording. Technical source material qualifies only when transformed into an integrated reader-facing scientific argument. Prefer other skills for journal or reviewer-response strategy, grants, literature synthesis, slides or posters, or figure redesign.
- ▌ Scientific Feedback · jjfroehlich bundleUse only when the current deliverable is holistic, prioritized, multi-lens critique of audience-facing scientific communication or governance in a manuscript, talk, poster, grant, study proposal, research pitch, collaborator update, or lab-policy document. Reassess every turn; do not invoke or retain this skill because an earlier turn involved scientific feedback. Exclude code or data-flow review, missing-value or zero handling, requirements-to-code traceability, computational workflows, pipelines, preprocessing, statistical or model configurations, implementation, reproducibility, validation, run outputs, and technical documentation—even when scientific analyses or planning documents are involved. Results or output directories qualify only when the user explicitly wants them converted into or assessed as an audience-facing scientific argument or artifact across multiple lenses. For mixed documents-and-code tasks, default to general technical review unless audience readiness is primary.
- ▌ Scientific Communication · jjfroehlich bundleUse when the user needs to design, review, adapt, or rehearse scientific communication for a live, spoken, visual, or audience-facing setting: talks, slide decks, posters as presentation artifacts, chalk talks, elevator pitches, public explanations, research stories, delivery plans, timing, or Q&A preparation. Trigger from drafts, outlines, venue/audience constraints, slide or poster plans, scripts, or rehearsal concerns. Prefer writing for manuscript prose, visualization for chart/figure design decisions, and publishing for submission or peer-review logistics.
- ▌ Publishing And Peer Review · jjfroehlich bundleUse when the user is acting as an author, reviewer, or editor-facing correspondent in a scientific publication process and needs help with journal submission packages, cover letters, presubmission or editor inquiries, peer-review reports, reviewer ethics, conflicts, confidentiality, editorial decision interpretation, appeals, transfers, resubmission strategy, or response-to-reviewers letters. Trigger on concrete publication-process decisions or artifacts, not on general manuscript prose editing, figure design, grant review, literature summaries, or journal-ranking curiosity without an active submission/review context.
- ▌ Data Visualization And Figures · jjfroehlich bundleUse only when the current request primarily requires unresolved judgment about how scientific evidence should be visually communicated in a scientific plot, table, image panel, figure, graphical abstract, or publication export. Reassess every turn; do not invoke or retain this skill merely because an earlier turn involved figure design. Trigger for choosing or critiquing chart form, encodings, uncertainty or replicate display, scales, axes, color accessibility, annotations, panel or page composition, typography, image channels, scale bars, or final-size readiness. A plot, PDF, report, or analysis script is not sufficient. Exclude source-code organization, report-generation plumbing, plotting syntax or debugging, and mechanical implementation, reruns, or validation of already-set visual specifications unless the current request reopens a visual-evidence decision. Prefer writing for prose-only legends and communication for talk or poster story and delivery.
- ▌ Literature Reading And Synthesis · jjfroehlich bundleUse only when the current deliverable is active reading or synthesis of scientific literature: claim/evidence extraction, figure unpacking, cross-paper comparison, a synthesis matrix, literature tracking, reusable evidence notes, or journal-club readiness. Reassess every turn; do not invoke or retain this skill merely because papers were relevant earlier. Do not use when literature is supporting evidence for computational analysis, pipelines, model architecture, fine-tuning, feature engineering, or implementation strategy, even if the user asks to consult or compare papers. Also exclude a completed review used only to update plans, workflows, scripts, manuscripts, or documentation; dataset/download provenance; literature search alone; simple one-paper summaries; citation formatting; grant writing; peer review; and slide design unless renewed literature examination is the primary work.
- ▌ Mentoring Management And Lab Culture · jjfroehlich bundleUse this skill when the user needs research-group mentoring, lab-management, or lab-culture help that turns expectations into concrete systems, documents, routines, scripts, or escalation paths. Trigger on lab handbooks, onboarding, mentoring compacts, IDP meetings, feedback scripts, authorship or credit norms, conflict diagnosis, performance concerns, PI/lab leadership systems, power dynamics, belonging, work-life boundaries, and culture repair in scientific labs. Do not trigger for personal career decisions, research-project strategy, manuscript/grant work, or legal/clinical determinations.
- ▌ Research Strategy And Project Design · jjfroehlich bundleUse only when the current decision changes which scientific question, hypothesis, project direction, experimental program, or portfolio bet to pursue, pause, pivot, or stop. Do not use for updating an analysis plan, implementation roadmap, or work sequence inside a fixed project. Reassess every turn; earlier strategy work does not retain this skill. Exclude selecting datasets, annotations, predictors, features, models, statistical settings, analysis units, windows, thresholds, contrasts, estimands, controls, diagnostics, plots, or code—even when called a roadmap, strategy, next step, pivot, or go/no-go. Trigger for candidate ideas, new hypotheses, novelty/feasibility tradeoffs, decisive scientific uncertainties, de-risking experiments, kill criteria, and choices that materially change the scientific program or whether the project continues. Prefer scientific-feedback for holistic critique of an audience-facing research plan.