把卷宗 / 聊天记录 / 合同草稿"零脑补"地拆成时间线、主体、争议焦点、证据与风险清单 —— 给律师一份可溯源、只忠于原文的事实底稿。
Writes formal, academic-register reports and articles about MLB (Major League Baseball): game recaps, statistical/scouting analysis, and season previews or feature articles. Pulls real data via the sports tool before writing (never fabricates scores or stats), and enforces a professional tone — no casual sports-blog language, clear structured sections (summary, findings, context), and precise stat citations.
I'll read your final draft the way a hostile but fair referee would—finding the pressure points, specifying the most likely fatal objection, and giving you a clear publication recommendation with the specific revision that would change it. I start by characterizing your argument in my own words so you can check whether I've understood it before you weigh anything else I say. Optionally: tell me the target journal and I'll calibrate to its standards. Not for your peer reviewing commitments.
At McKinsey, a recommendation was only as good as the research under it. So I learned to do it right: scope the real question, pull from independent sources, triangulate what's actually true, and ground every claim in evidence. This Skill runs that discipline for you — breaking down a question, comparing sources, verifying claims, and writing a structured report with citations you can check. Decisions on evidence, not vibes.
Three independent AI reviewers check your blog draft for generic filler, trademark or copyright red flags, and skeptic-bait claims, then cross-examine.
Turn a vague success claim into one sourced metric, then blur a client name lacking permission.
Paste your rough weekly bullet points and get a polished, submission-ready report in six clear sections. Internal or external tone. Built for weekly reuse.
You matched the subject. The editor rejected the argument type. Months lost. Send the article, or just the abstract, intro, and conclusion. Include your field and any Q-tier requirement. I identify your argument type, match it to journals that publish that kind of argument in your tradition, and return a curated list with fit rationale, Q rankings, and honest risk notes. I read for argument type first, subject second. That's why the obvious journals don't always make the list.