---

name: sf-workflow description: Use as the entry point for any Social Forces (SF) manuscript. Routes to the right SF sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle, keeping the paper aimed at a general social-science audience and inside the journal's reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap and 10-panel exhibit limit. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Social Forces Workflow Router (sf-workflow)

The orchestrator for a Social Forces submission. Figure out the stage, then send the user to the matching skill. SF is a general social-science journal (centered on sociology, published by Oxford University Press for UNC Chapel Hill) with a reputation for methodological rigor. Two structural facts shape every routing decision: the 10,000-word cap includes the reference list, and exhibits are capped at 10 tables and figure panels.

When to trigger

• Starting a new SF paper and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Worried the paper reads as subfield-only rather than for a general social-science audience
• Returning with a decision letter (route to sf-rebuttal)

First check: fit and format

Situation	Route to
Unsure the question matters beyond your subfield	sf-topic-selection
Strong subfield lit but no general-audience framing	sf-literature-positioning
A finding without a portable argument	sf-theory-building
Identification / case-selection / design worries	sf-research-design
Over 10,000 words with references counted	sf-writing-style (trim)
More than 10 tables and figure panels	sf-tables-figures (cut/consolidate)

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit?                          → sf-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field?      → sf-literature-positioning
What's the portable argument?        → sf-theory-building
Is the design defensible?            → sf-research-design
Are the analyses sound?              → sf-data-analysis
Are the exhibits within 10 panels?   → sf-tables-figures
Does it read for a general audience? → sf-writing-style
Data availability statement ready?   → sf-data-and-transparency
How will it be judged?               → sf-review-process
Ready to submit?                     → sf-submission
Got an R&R / decision?               → sf-rebuttal

Default order

topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → data-and-transparency → review-process → submission → rebuttal

Iterate: most SF papers loop theory ↔ design ↔ analysis several times, then spend real effort trimming prose (references count!) and exhibits (10-panel cap) before writing-style and submission.

Anti-patterns

• Treating SF like a narrow subfield outlet — it judges work by general social-science significance
• Forgetting that references count toward the 10,000-word cap until the final trim
• Letting exhibits drift past 10 panels and discovering it at submission
• Formatting to the ASA Style Guide or an AJS-style house format — SF uses Chicago 17th author-date

Symptom-to-route shortcuts

When a user arrives mid-stream with a complaint rather than a stage, route on the symptom:

User says	Likely real problem	Route to
"Reviewer called it descriptive"	Missing portable argument	sf-theory-building
"It's 1,500 words over"	References counted late	sf-writing-style
"Reviewer doubts the causal claim"	Identification gap	sf-research-design
"Feels too niche for SF"	General-significance gap	sf-topic-selection

Worked vignette (illustrative): a user brings a clean networks analysis but a referee wrote "elegant method, unclear social question." That is not a methods problem — route first to sf-topic-selection and sf-theory-building to surface the substantive payoff, then back to sf-tables-figures to ration the panels, only afterward to sf-submission.

Router pass for Social Forces

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the social mechanism, data scope, identification or interpretation, and contribution to a wider literature; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: social-science reviewers who want generalizable social-process evidence across sociology, demography, and policy-adjacent topics.

• Do the pass: Run the pack as a sequence: fit gate, evidence gate, writing gate, source-map gate, and final output contract; stop when a gate lacks evidence.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against ASR/AJS for top sociology theory stakes, Demography for population process, JMF for family-specific claims; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Fit】general social-science significance clear? [Y/N]
【Format risk】words (incl. refs) ≤ 10,000? panels ≤ 10? [Y/N]
【Route to】sf-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — sociology data + software by method
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official Social Forces URLs behind every fact in this pack