career-document-architect
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/career-document-architectCrafts strategic academic documents that align vision with track record.
- Generates research, teaching, and diversity statements for faculty advancement.
- Leverages institutional alignment data to tailor narrative coherence.
- Decides content by analyzing user intent and career trajectory goals.
- Delivers polished drafts with evidence-based claims and future focus.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/career-document-architectView on GitHub ↗
--- name: career-document-architect description: Guides the creation of career documents for academic advancement including research statements, teaching statements, diversity statements, CVs, and biosketches. Combines strategic positioning, narrative coherence, and institutional alignment with authentic representation of contributions and vision. Use when writing or reviewing faculty applications, fellowship statements, promotion packages, award applications, or when user mentions research statement, teaching philosophy, diversity statement, biosketch, academic CV, or career narrative. --- # Career Document Architect ## Table of Contents - [Core Principles](#core-principles) - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Document Frameworks](#document-frameworks) - [Writing Strategies](#writing-strategies) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) **Related skills (use instead for):** - Grant proposals: `grant-proposal-assistant` - Recommendation letters: `academic-letter-architect` - Manuscript writing: `scientific-manuscript-review` ## Core Principles **1. Vision + Track Record**: Show where you're going AND what you've accomplished **2. Coherent Narrative**: All pieces should tell a unified story **3. Audience Awareness**: Tailor depth and framing to readers **4. Evidence-Based Claims**: Support assertions with specifics **5. Future-Oriented**: Emphasize trajectory and potential **6. Authentic Voice**: Represent yourself genuinely ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Career Document Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Identify document type and audience - [ ] Step 2: Gather raw materials (CV, accomplishments) - [ ] Step 3: Develop core narrative thread - [ ] Step 4: Draft document using appropriate framework - [ ] Step 5: Add evidence and specifics - [ ] Step 6: Align with institutional expectations - [ ] Step 7: Polish and format ``` **Step 1: Identify Type and Audience** Determine document type (research/teaching/diversity statement, CV, biosketch). Identify audience (search committee, review panel). Note any specific requirements (page limits, format specifications). See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#audience-analysis) for audience considerations. **Step 2: Gather Raw Materials** Compile: Current CV, publications, grants, teaching evaluations, mentorship record, outreach activities, preliminary data, future plans. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#materials-checklist) for comprehensive list. **Step 3: Develop Core Narrative** Identify the through-line connecting your work. What question drives you? What impact do you seek? How does past work connect to future plans? See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#narrative-development) for narrative construction. **Step 4: Draft Using Framework** Select appropriate framework for document type. Follow structure that matches institutional norms. See [Document Frameworks](#document-frameworks) for each type. **Step 5: Add Evidence and Specifics** Replace generic claims with specific accomplishments. Quantify where possible (papers, citations, students mentored). Add concrete examples for abstract claims. **Step 6: Align with Institution** Research institution's priorities. Emphasize fit without fabricating. Address how you contribute to their mission. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#institutional-fit) for alignment strategies. **Step 7: Polish and Format** Check length constraints. Ensure consistent formatting. Proofread carefully. Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_career_document.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_career_document.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score ≥ 3.5. ## Document Frameworks ### Research Statement **Purpose:** Articulate research vision, demonstrate independence, show future potential **Length:** Typically 2-5 pages (check requirements) **Structure:** ``` OPENING (1 paragraph) - Hook: Compelling statement of your research focus - Big picture: Why this matters to the field/society - Your role: How you contribute to addressing this PAST RESEARCH (1-2 pages) - Organize by themes, not chronology - Highlight key contributions with impact - Show how past work builds foundation for future - Include quantifiable outcomes (papers, citations, methods) CURRENT RESEARCH (0.5-1 page) - Ongoing projects and preliminary results - Bridge between past and future - Show productivity and momentum FUTURE DIRECTIONS (1-2 pages) - 2-3 specific research directions - For each: Why important? What's the approach? What's expected impact? - Show independence and creativity - Connect to fundable questions (NIH/NSF relevance) CLOSING (1 paragraph) - Synthesis: How pieces fit together - Why this institution/department - Broader impact statement ``` ### Teaching Statement **Purpose:** Articulate teaching philosophy and demonstrate effectiveness **Length:** Typically 1-2 pages **Structure:** ``` PHILOSOPHY (1-2 paragraphs) - Core beliefs about teaching/learning - What makes your approach distinctive - Grounded in evidence or experience EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS (1-2 paragraphs) - Courses taught with enrollments - Teaching evaluations (quote specific feedback) - Student outcomes (publications, placements) - Innovations introduced METHODS AND APPROACHES (1-2 paragraphs) - Specific techniques you use - Active learning strategies - Assessment approaches - Technology integration MENTORSHIP (1 paragraph) - Undergraduate/graduate mentoring - Student achievements - Mentoring philosophy FUTURE TEACHING (1 paragraph) - Courses you could teach - New courses you'd develop - Curricular contributions ``` ### Diversity Statement **Purpose:** Demonstrate commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion **Length:** Typically 1-2 pages **Structure:** ``` INTRODUCTION (1 paragraph) - Your understanding of DEI in academia - Why it matters to you - Preview of your contributions PAST ACTIONS (1-2 paragraphs) - Specific activities promoting DEI - Mentoring underrepresented students - Curriculum development - Outreach activities - Quantify impact where possible PERSONAL CONTEXT (optional, 1 paragraph) - Your own background if relevant - Experiences informing your commitment - Only include if comfortable and genuine FUTURE PLANS (1 paragraph) - How you'll contribute at this institution - Specific programs or initiatives - Connection to institutional DEI priorities CLOSING - Synthesis of commitment - Why this matters for your field ``` ### CV Format (Academic) **Standard Sections:** ``` CONTACT INFORMATION EDUCATION - Degrees in reverse chronological order - Institution, degree, year, advisor (for PhD) POSITIONS - Academic appointments - Industry positions (if relevant) PUBLICATIONS - Peer-reviewed (mark * for corresponding author) - Preprints - Reviews/Book chapters GRANTS AND FUNDING - Current and past funding - Role (PI, Co-PI, etc.) - Amount and duration HONORS AND AWARDS PRESENTATIONS - Invited talks - Conference presentations TEACHING - Courses taught - Mentoring record SERVICE - Editorial boards - Review panels - Committee work PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS ``` ### NIH Biosketch **Length:** 5 pages maximum **Sections:** ``` A. PERSONAL STATEMENT (0.5 page) - Why you're well-suited for this project - Relevant experience and expertise - Key accomplishments that qualify you - Up to 4 publications supporting this statement B. POSITIONS, SCIENTIFIC APPOINTMENTS, AND HONORS C. CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE (up to 5 contributions, 0.5 page each) - Contribution 1: - Description of contribution (1 paragraph) - Your specific role - Impact on field - Up to 4 publications supporting this contribution - [Repeat for each contribution] D. RESEARCH SUPPORT - Current (with role, title, dates, description) - Completed (last 3 years) ``` ## Writing Strategies ### The "So What?" Test For every claim, ask "so what?" If you can't answer, the claim needs more: | Claim | So What? | Improved | |-------|----------|----------| | "I published 10 papers" | Impact? | "My 10 papers have been cited 500 times, including 3 that established new methods in the field" | | "I'm passionate about teaching" | Evidence? | "My passion for teaching is reflected in consistent evaluation scores above 4.5/5 and 5 undergraduates who went to PhD programs" | | "I'm committed to diversity" | What have you done? | "I co-founded a mentoring program that has supported 20 students from underrepresented groups" | ### Showing vs. Telling | Telling (Weak) | Showing (Strong) | |----------------|------------------| | "I am a productive researcher" | "I have published 15 peer-reviewed articles including 3 in high-impact journals" | | "I am an effective teacher" | "Student evaluations average 4.7/5.0 with comments highlighting my use of active learning" | | "I am committed to mentoring" | "I have mentored 8 undergraduates, 5 of whom are now in PhD programs" | ### Future Vision Formula For each future direction: 1. **The Question**: What will you investigate? 2. **The Importance**: Why does this matter? 3. **The Approach**: How will you do it? 4. **The Expected Impact**: What changes if successful? ## Guardrails **Key requirements:** 1. **Truthful**: Never fabricate or exaggerate 2. **Evidence-based**: Claims supported by specifics 3. **Audience-appropriate**: Match depth to readers 4. **Forward-looking**: Emphasize trajectory and vision 5. **Coherent narrative**: All pieces connect 6. **Compliant**: Follow format and length requirements **Common pitfalls:** - ❌ **Laundry lists**: Lists without narrative - ❌ **Vague claims**: "I am passionate about..." without evidence - ❌ **Missing future**: All past, no vision - ❌ **Generic fit**: Same statement for every application - ❌ **Too long**: Ignoring page limits - ❌ **Missing impact**: What you did without why it matters ## Quick Reference **Key resources:** - **[resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)**: Audience analysis, narrative development, institutional fit - **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)**: Section templates, examples - **[resources/evaluators/rubric_career_document.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_career_document.json)**: Quality scoring **Typical lengths:** | Document | Typical Length | |----------|----------------| | Research Statement | 2-5 pages | | Teaching Statement | 1-2 pages | | Diversity Statement | 1-2 pages | | NIH Biosketch | 5 pages max | **Time estimates:** - Research statement (from scratch): 2-4 weeks - Research statement (revision): 1-2 days - Teaching statement: 1-2 days - Diversity statement: 1-2 days - CV update: 1-2 hours - Biosketch: 2-4 hours **Inputs required:** - Current CV - Job/fellowship description - Institutional priorities (if known) - Specific accomplishments to highlight **Outputs produced:** - Polished career document - Commentary on structure and positioning
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".