---

name: geb-workflow description: Use when deciding which geb-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

GEB Workflow Router (geb-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which geb- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Games and Economic Behavior (GEB).

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as GEB — the leading specialist game-theory journal, published by Elsevier and an official journal of the Game Theory Society (founded 1989 by Ehud Kalai; chief editor Hervé Moulin since 2021). GEB judges work on whether it advances the frontiers of game theory and its applications — theory, mechanism design, behavioral, and experiments — not general-economics interest alone. Its process is distinctive: the chief editor assigns each paper to one of seven Editors (your publicly known "Editor in Charge"), who routes it to an anonymous Advisory Editor and anonymous referees. About one-third of submissions are desk-rejected and only ~15% are eventually published. Re-verify volatile specifics (chief editor, the seven Editors, abstract cap, fees) on the official Guide for Authors; several are marked 待核实 in the source map.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?"
• The user hands over a draft and needs the current bottleneck diagnosed
• Work is ping-ponging between theory, experiment, writing, and response letters
• A GEB decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Result feels incremental / unclear it advances game theory itself	geb-topic-selection
Relation to the game-theory literature is fuzzy or undersold	geb-literature-positioning
The "so what for game theory" sentence is missing	geb-contribution-framing
Proofs are opaque, or assumptions/generality are under-examined	geb-identification-strategy
Experimental data / numerical examples need analysis or are under-powered	geb-data-analysis
Game trees, payoff matrices, or result tables are unclear	geb-tables-figures
Prose buries the model; abstract is over 250 words	geb-writing-style
Need a data/code-sharing plan (encouraged, not required at GEB)	geb-replication-and-data-policy
Want to understand the Editor-in-Charge review path before submitting	geb-review-process
Ready to submit via Editorial Manager; need a preflight + cover letter	geb-submission
Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy	geb-rebuttal

Default order

1. geb-topic-selection — confirm the result advances game theory itself
2. geb-literature-positioning — locate it against the game-theory frontier
3. geb-contribution-framing — state the one-sentence contribution to the field
4. geb-identification-strategy — assumptions, results, proof exposition, generality
5. geb-data-analysis — experimental analysis / verified numerical examples
6. geb-tables-figures — game trees, payoff matrices, clean result exhibits
7. geb-writing-style — land the model for a general game-theory reader (abstract ≤250 words)
8. geb-replication-and-data-policy — optional but recommended sharing plan
9. geb-review-process — understand the Editor-in-Charge path
10. geb-submission — Editorial Manager preflight + conference-version cover letter
11. geb-rebuttal — after the R&R

geb-writing-style is a late-stage polish. Do not rewrite the introduction before the theorems and assumptions are settled — the statements will change.

Stage log

Keep this log with the manuscript and update it after each working pass; the first unresolved line is your route:

GEB stage log  (✓ = settled, ? = open — first ? wins)
contribution  one-line advance to game theory written out verbatim ..... [?]
positioning   nearest frontier papers named + what you generalize ...... [?]
results       theorems stated, assumptions listed, proofs readable ..... [?]
evidence      experiment powered / numerical examples verified ......... [?]
exhibits      game trees and payoff matrices self-contained ............ [?]
prose         abstract ≤250 words; model reachable within intro ........ [?]
sharing       data/code plan drafted (encouraged, not required) ........ [?]
process       Editor-in-Charge path + desk-reject risks reviewed ....... [?]
submit        Editorial Manager preflight; conference version flagged .. [?]
--- decision letter in hand? ignore every line above → geb-rebuttal ---

• "Is this big enough for GEB?" → geb-topic-selection
• "Who am I building on / generalizing?" → geb-literature-positioning
• "My proof is correct but unreadable" → geb-identification-strategy
• "My experiment may be under-powered" → geb-data-analysis
• "My abstract is 320 words" → geb-writing-style
• "There's a conference version of this paper" → geb-submission
• "Who actually decides on my paper?" → geb-review-process
• "I got a revise-and-resubmit" → geb-rebuttal

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip geb-contribution-framing and submit a technically-correct result with no stated advance to game theory — desk-reject risk
• Do not polish exhibits while the main theorem's assumptions are still moving
• Do not treat GEB like a general-economics top-5: the bar is advancing game theory, not broad policy interest
• Do not let geb-rebuttal draft a response letter before the revised manuscript exists