Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when selecting, implementing, or stress-testing the causal identification strategy for an empirical The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — DID (incl. staggered), IV (incl. weak-IV-robust inference), RDD, synthetic control, shift-share, or RCT. Apply before writing results; for theory papers route to restud-theory-model.

Use when positioning a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript against the closest related work — confronting the nearest papers and stating the marginal contribution precisely. Sharpens positioning; does not write the full introduction or run empirics.

Use when a referee report or R&R has arrived for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript and a point-by-point response letter plus aligned manuscript revisions are needed. Structures the revision and the letter; does not redo the science from scratch.

Use when anticipating the referee pool and their likely objections for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript, and when pre-empting those objections in the paper before submission. Maps reviewers and hardens the paper against them; does not write the rebuttal (that is restud-rebuttal).

Use when assembling the data and code deposit for an accepted empirical The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript, writing the README, or auditing reproducibility before the journal's Data Editor runs the pre-publication reproducibility check. Builds a deposit-ready package; does not run the analysis. Verify the current REStud/OUP data policy on the official page.

Use when the main results of a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript exist but referee-anticipating checks — robustness, heterogeneity, mechanism, placebo, alternative specifications — are missing or fragile. Hardens the result against demanding referees; does not redesign identification.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — double-anonymity, the ~45-page limit, Harvard author-date references, online appendix, the USD submission fee, and the Editorial Express portal. Last gate before submitting; does not assess the science. Verify current limits and fee on the journal's official page.

Use when the exhibits in a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript need to be made publication-grade — regression tables that are oversized or footnote-bloated, or figures that do not carry the result. Finalizes exhibits to REStud house standard; does not run the underlying analysis.

Use when building, sharpening, or stress-testing the theoretical model in a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — whether a pure-theory paper or an empirical paper with a model — and when routing proofs to the online appendix. Develops the model and its economic payoff; does not run the empirics.

Use when evaluating whether a research idea clears the REStud top-5 bar, or when sharpening a fuzzy idea into one clean original contribution for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Diagnoses fit and contribution; does not draft prose or design empirics.

Use when deciding which restud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when polishing the prose of a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — introduction, abstract, and overall economy of exposition — so the original contribution reads clearly and elegantly. Polishes writing; does not change results, design, or model.

Use when the marginal contribution of a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript to the finance literature is fuzzy or undersold — turning a result into a defensible "what we now know that we did not" claim that a top-three-standard referee will accept.

Use when auditing Review of Finance empirical or theoretical analysis: sample construction, identification, asset-pricing tests, corporate-finance variables, robustness, code reproducibility, and evidence that can satisfy top-three-finance-journal standards.

Use when the credibility core of a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript is the bottleneck — causal identification for empirical finance (DID, IV, RDD, event study, natural experiments) OR assumptions, results, and proof exposition for theoretical finance. Stress-tests the design or model to the top-three-finance-journal standard.

Use when positioning a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript against the finance frontier — citing the right top-three work, honoring RoF's strict author-responsibility citation norm, and staking the contribution without a standalone survey.

Use when drafting a Review of Finance response letter and revision plan after an R&R, especially under the two-round philosophy, top-three-finance standards, code/data conditions, and page-cap constraints.

Use when preparing Review of Finance code, data, pseudo-datasets, log files, Data Availability Statement, dataset citations, cover-letter exceptions, and OUP supplementary replication package.

Use when interpreting Review of Finance desk screening, Screen Reports, double-blind review, top-three-finance-journal referee standards, two-round decision philosophy, Fast-Track timing, and sanctions for undisclosed resubmission or dual submission.

Use when running a Review of Finance submission preflight for Editorial Express, regular versus Fast-Track fee choice, 60-page cap, 150-word abstract, double-blind anonymity, Chicago references, cover-letter disclosure, and code-sharing exceptions.

Use when designing Review of Finance tables and figures under the 60-page total cap, including empirical-finance exhibits, theory figures, robustness tables, data-description tables, and replication-friendly notes.

Use when judging whether a finance idea clears the Review of Finance (RoF) general-interest bar before any estimation or modeling — first-order question, fit with the journal's empirical-and-theoretical scope, and the top-three-finance-journal standard RoF referees apply.

Use when deciding which rof-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Review of Finance (RoF) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when revising a Review of Finance manuscript for a 150-word abstract, double-blind wording, Chicago-style references, first-order finance framing, two-round review discipline, and 60-page total manuscript constraint.

Use when sample construction, estimator choice, factor/portfolio design, or measurement is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Settles design choices that make the identification credible; does NOT pick the identification strategy or run robustness.

Use when the causal-inference or asset-pricing identification strategy is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — quasi-experiments (DID, IV, RDD, event study) and factor-model identification. Stress-tests the design before drafting tables.

Use when deciding what belongs in the journal-hosted Internet Appendix vs. the main paper for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript, and how to structure it. Organizes supplementary material; does NOT generate the robustness content itself.

Use when the related-work framing is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — defining the precise delta against JF/JFE/RFS and prior literature. Builds positioning, not the empirical design or the topic itself.

Use after a decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) on a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript, to structure the response letter and revision plan. Writes the rebuttal; assumes the manuscript itself is being revised in parallel.

Use when choosing suggested/opposed referees or running an objection pre-mortem before submitting a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Anticipates reviewer concerns; does NOT write the rebuttal (that is rfs-rebuttal).

Use when results may be fragile or when multiple-testing / out-of-sample discipline is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Builds the robustness battery referees will demand; does NOT design identification or write the rebuttal.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — the SFS Editorial Express portal, cover letter, formatting, Internet Appendix, submission fee, and SFS norms. Checks readiness; does NOT write the paper or the rebuttal.

Use when main-paper exhibits are the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript — table layout, standard-error reporting, and publication-grade figures. Finalizes exhibits; does NOT decide robustness content or move material to the appendix.

Use when the research question or contribution is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Pressure-tests novelty-plus-rigor fit and drafts the contribution claim; does NOT design the empirics or position the literature in detail.

Use when deciding which rfs-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use as a late-stage polish when prose, contribution framing, or the abstract/introduction is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Sharpens exposition; does NOT change the empirics, identification, or results.

Use to write the Science one-sentence summary and the ≤125-word abstract — both readable by a general scientific audience, both leading with the advance. Late-stage polish skill.

Use to convert references to Science's numbered citation style — cited in order of appearance, combined main+SM list, full author lists, abbreviated journal titles. Late-stage style pass.

Use to write the editor-facing cover letter for Science — a tight, significance-forward pitch that helps the editor decide in minutes whether to send the paper out for review.

Use to build Science's data, code, and materials availability — mandatory deposition in approved repositories, accession numbers, a compliant data-availability statement, and materials/reagent sharing.

Use to finalize Science display items — panel/word budget, column-width sizing, minimum font sizes, color-accessibility, and showing the data (points over bars). Enforces figure rigor before submission.

Use first, before any writing, to stress-test whether a result clears Science's desk-reject filter — broad significance and general interest across disciplines. Decides Science vs Science Advances vs a specialist journal.

Use to lock the conceptual advance and the "why now" before drafting — converts a correct result into a Science-shaped narrative that leads with the advance, not the background.

Use after Science reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Use to enforce Science's statistics and reproducibility reporting — n and replication, test choice and assumptions, effect sizes with uncertainty, multiple-comparison control, randomization/blinding, and pre-registration where relevant.

Use as the final preflight before submitting to Science — a complete checklist across significance, format, figures, statistics, data, references, and required files. Bundles templates.

Use when deciding which sci-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for Science (AAAS). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use to choose the Science format (Research Article vs Report) and hold its length and structure budgets — main text, word/figure caps, and what belongs in Supplementary Materials.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Social Forces (SF) manuscript so it survives expert, double-anonymized review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, demographic, network, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when preparing the data, code, and transparency materials for a Social Forces (SF) manuscript. SF requires a data availability statement on every published paper and encourages deposit in a public repository where ethically feasible. Covers quantitative and qualitative transparency and restricted-data paths; it does not waive requirements.