Use when starting or navigating any American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript as the entry point. Routes to the right AA sub-skill based on lifecycle stage, subfield (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), and section type (Research Article, Vital Topics Forum, World/Public/Multimodal Anthropologies, Review Essay). It dispatches; it does not draft content.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
The orchestrator for an American Anthropologist submission. Figure out the stage, the subfield, and the section type, then send the user to the matching skill. AA is the four-field AAA flagship — the router's first job is to make sure the work reads as anthropology that speaks across subfields, with reflexivity and an ethics of care built in from the start, not bolted on.
amanthro-rebuttal)| Situation | Section | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Full original study, broad anthropological significance | Research Article (≤ 8,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| Multi-voice debate on a pressing issue | Vital Topics Forum | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-writing-style |
| Anthropology produced outside the US/Anglophone center | World Anthropologies | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-literature-positioning |
| Engaged / activist / publicly-facing work | Public Anthropologies | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-transparency-and-data |
| Image / sound / film / installation as argument | Multimodal Anthropologies | amanthro-tables-figures + amanthro-writing-style |
| Assessing 2–5 recent books | Review Essay (≤ 5,000 words) | amanthro-literature-positioning |
AA spans four fields: sociocultural, archaeology, biological/physical, linguistic, plus reflexive/public anthropology. The methods and the transparency/ethics demands differ by subfield — name yours before routing (see
amanthro-research-design).
Idea / fit / section? → amanthro-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → amanthro-literature-positioning
What's the conceptual argument? → amanthro-theory-building
Is the fieldwork/design sound? → amanthro-research-design
Is the analysis/inference sound? → amanthro-data-analysis
Are ethnographic exhibits clear? → amanthro-tables-figures
Does it read across the fields? → amanthro-writing-style
Ethics, consent, accountability? → amanthro-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged? → amanthro-review-process
Ready to submit? → amanthro-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → amanthro-rebuttal
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most ethnographic papers loop theory ↔ fieldwork ↔ interpretation many times, and the
ethics-and-accountability check (amanthro-transparency-and-data) should run early and again
before submission — consent and community accountability are designed in, not added at the end.
Before selecting the next skill, force a one-minute AA fit check:
| Check | Pass condition | Route if weak |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | A reader in another subfield (e.g., an archaeologist reading a linguistic paper) can state why it matters to anthropology. | amanthro-topic-selection |
| Mode honesty | The method (ethnographic, archival, material, lab, computational) is defended in its own idiom, not forced into a quantitative template. | amanthro-research-design |
| Reflexivity | Positionality and the author's relationship to the field/community are made explicit. | amanthro-theory-building |
| Ethics of care | Consent, anonymization, community accountability, and heritage/repatriation obligations have an explicit plan. | amanthro-transparency-and-data |
If the paper fails the reach check, do not route to writing-style — it needs a fit or theory repair, because AA reviewers reject technically clean subfield papers that never become anthropological claims.
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / rebut
【Subfield】sociocultural / archaeology / biological / linguistic / reflexive-public
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics Forum / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay
【Route to】amanthro-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
../../resources/external_tools.md — anthropology data sources, archives, CAQDAS, lab/quant tooling by subfield../../resources/official-source-map.md — official AA / AAA / Wiley URLs behind every fact in this packまだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。