Individual skill
prl-methods
Use when deciding what methodological detail belongs in a Physical Review Letters body versus Supplemental Material, so a physicist can trust the result without the Letter becoming a long paper. Partitions methods; does not design figures or run analysis.
Physical-Review-Letters-Skills/skills/prl-methods/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Network or broad shell
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,400
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- design Derived category
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 5,904 bytes
Read excerpt
# PRL Methods (prl-methods)
## When to trigger
- Your Methods text is several paragraphs of apparatus, sample, or derivation detail
- You cannot tell what a reader *needs* versus what is reassuring completeness
- Reviewers of a prior draft asked for more rigor, and you are tempted to add bulk
- The Letter is over length and methods are a prime trimming target
- You are unsure which derivation steps to keep inline versus move to SM
## The trust-minimum principle
In a Letter, methods exist to let a competent physicist **believe the central claim** — not to enable full replication inline. Full replication detail lives in Supplemental Material. Keep in the body only what is load-bearing for trust:
