Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when building or tightening the conceptual frame or quantitative model that disciplines an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's policy logic. Keeps the model minimal-but-honest and legible to a policy audience; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Use when an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's prose reads like a technical report instead of accessible policy writing. Rewrites for the EP dual audience — non-technical main text, rigor in the appendix; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Use to polish the prose, notation, and proof exposition of an Econometric Theory (ET) manuscript — theorem-proof clarity, consistent notation, APA author-date references, and ET manuscript-prep specs (11pt, 1.5 spacing, 1.25in margins, 200-word abstract, 40-char running head).
Use when drafting EDBT author responses across the two turns of a cycle — the short author-feedback reply on the initial reviews, and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit change letter that maps every reviewer request to a concrete revision re-read by the original reviewers under the OpenProceedings process.
Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER) — general-interest across all of economics — rather than a field journal, JEEA, or The Economic Journal. Diagnoses fit and reframes for breadth; it does not build the identification or the model.
Use when drafting or revising the 中文内容提要 (~300 字, official) or English 梗概/Summary for an 《经济研究》 manuscript. Enforces the five-sentence Chinese pattern, the five-element English Summary, and forbids empty-significance phrases. 本技能服务于《经济研究》(Economic Research Journal, ERJ)。
Use when drafting or revising the literature-review section for an Economic-Research manuscript, when the Chinese / English reference balance is off, or when canonical theory references are missing.
Use when revising an ACM FAccT paper so that a fairness/accountability/transparency contribution is legible on the first page to a mixed CS+law+social-science reviewer pool, claims are scoped to who is affected, limitations and harms are argued rather than recited, the interdisciplinary framing is native, and the acmart page budget and endmatter statements are used well.
Use when drafting ESEC/FSE author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the journal-style Major Revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every reviewer request to a concrete tracked change, and survive re-review by the original reviewers under PACMSE.
Use when revising an ESEC/FSE paper for a practitioner-grounded software-engineering contribution on the first page, research-question contracts, a threats-to-validity section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the ACM-template page budget.