Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when drafting or polishing a Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript so it reads for scholars AND practitioners, carries strong Evidence for Practice, and fits the limits (≤ 8,000 words incl. abstract/endnotes/references; abstract ≤ 150 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
Use to sharpen the one-sentence contribution of a Quantitative Economics (QE) manuscript so a general-interest Econometric Society reader sees the quantitative payoff immediately. Frames the claim and its scope; it does not redo estimation or write full prose.
Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for a Quantitative Economics (QE) manuscript — whether causal identification in an empirical design, parameter identification in a structural/computational model, or treatment-effect identification in an experiment. Stress-tests the strategy to the QE general-interest quantitative bar before exhibits are finalized.
Use when a Quantitative Economics (QE) decision letter arrives (R&R or major/conditional revision) and a response strategy and letter are needed. Structures the revision and response; it does not redo the analysis (route to the relevant qe-* skill for that).
Use when polishing prose, abstract, and introduction for a Quantitative Economics (QE) manuscript so a quantitative method and its economic payoff land for a general-interest Econometric Society readership. Reflects QE house rules (no significance asterisks; report SEs/coverage sets). Polishes exposition; it does not change results or estimation.
Use when war-gaming likely referee objections for a Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) manuscript before submitting, to close gaps pre-emptively given QJE's ~2-week desk screen and ~1-4% acceptance. Anticipates referee reports; it does not write the post-decision response letter (see qje-rebuttal).
Use when drafting an ACM RecSys rebuttal during the author-response window, covering the short narrative RecSys allows, anonymity, anchoring answers to submitted evidence and the anonymous repository, the recurring objections about untuned baselines, leakage, and offline-online gaps, and Senior-PC-focused clarification.
Use when revising an ACM RecSys paper for a recommendation-first first page, honest offline-versus-online framing, equal-budget baseline claims, leakage-aware evaluation wording, ACM two-column 8-page compression, double-blind phrasing, and claims scoped to what the ranking evidence actually supports rather than to leaderboard language.
Use when framing the marginal contribution of a Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) manuscript — stating the quantitative or dynamic advance in terms the SED readership values (a new mechanism, a new method, a new quantitative result, or model-disciplining evidence) and aligning the abstract and introduction around it.
Use when planning the response-to-referees after a Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) revise-and-resubmit — structuring a point-by-point reply for a single-anonymized, two-referee process, prioritizing model/quantitative concerns, and remembering that second-and-later resubmissions are exempt from the submission fee. Strategy; it does not write the paper.