Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Smj Methods

ASecurity

Use when designing the research method for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — sample, unit of analysis, measures, and the identification strategy. Designs the study; estimation and endogeneity execution live in smj-data-analysis.

1,052 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 6/6/2026
ai-agentspythongotestingperformance

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/6/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill smj-methods --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Smj Methods?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Smj Methods
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-smj-methods/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-smj-methods)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: smj-methods
description: Use when designing the research method for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — sample, unit of analysis, measures, and the identification strategy. Designs the study; estimation and endogeneity execution live in smj-data-analysis.
---

# Research Design & Methods (smj-methods)

## When to trigger

- Sample, time window, and unit of analysis are not yet pinned down
- Measures (especially of performance and of the strategic choice) are not validated
- You have not yet chosen an identification design for a causal claim
- You are deciding between quantitative panel work, a natural experiment, qualitative theory-building, or formal modeling

## Design families SMJ publishes

| Family                         | Best for                                                     |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Panel econometrics (firm/BU)   | Performance consequences of strategic choices over time      |
| Natural experiment / DID       | An exogenous shock to strategy or environment                |
| IV / two-stage                 | An endogenous strategic choice with a credible instrument    |
| Matching + DID                 | Selection on observables into a strategic action             |
| Selection (Heckman)            | Outcome observed only after a self-selected strategic step   |
| Qualitative / inductive        | Building new strategy theory where constructs are immature   |
| Formal / analytical modeling   | Deriving and testing equilibrium strategic behavior          |

The hallmark SMJ empirical paper uses **panel data with fixed effects** and then deploys one or more identification tools to address endogeneity. Choose the design *from the threat*, not from convenience.

> SMJ's empirical standard is codified in its own editorial — Bettis, Gambardella, Helfat & Mitchell (2014), "Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management," *SMJ* 35(7): 949–953 — which asks authors to acknowledge endogeneity and make a good-faith effort to address it, and disapproves of **data snooping and p-hacking**. SMJ also accepts that perfect causal inference is sometimes impossible; correlations that rule out alternative mechanisms can still be valuable if framed honestly.

## Sample & unit of analysis

- State the population, sampling frame, time window, and the exact unit (firm-year, BU-year, alliance, deal). Mismatched units (theory at the firm level, data at the deal level) draw fire.
- Justify the panel length: enough pre-periods to test parallel trends if using DID; enough within-firm variation if using FE.
- Report and justify all sample-construction filters (survivorship, missing data, industry exclusions). SMJ reviewers probe sample-selection artifacts.

## Measurement (the quiet rejection reason)

- **Performance DV:** pick the construct deliberately — accounting (ROA), market (Tobin's q, abnormal returns), or operational. Justify why it matches the theory; report sensitivity to alternatives.
- **Strategic-choice IV:** validate that the measure captures the construct (e.g., diversification, alliance scope) and not something correlated. Cite the source of any established measure.
- **Controls:** include theoretically motivated controls (firm size, age, slack, industry, prior performance) but avoid "bad controls" — outcomes of the treatment that absorb the effect.
- Pre-register, or at minimum pre-specify, the primary specification to avoid the appearance of specification search (SMJ disapproves of data snooping / p-hacking).

## Identification design (decide before estimating)

State the **identifying threat** explicitly, then the design that defeats it:

- **Selection into the strategic choice** (firms that ally/acquire/diversify differ): matching, IV, selection model, or a shock that assigns the choice.
- **Reverse causality** (performance drives the choice): lagged structure plus a design that breaks simultaneity (shock/IV); lags alone are not enough.
- **Unobserved heterogeneity** (a firm trait drives both): firm fixed effects, plus discussion of time-varying confounds FE cannot absorb.
- **Omitted environmental confounds:** industry-year fixed effects, region controls.

Name the design here; `smj-data-analysis` executes and stress-tests it.

## Checklist

- [ ] Population, frame, time window, and unit of analysis are explicit and matched to theory
- [ ] Every sample filter is reported and justified (survivorship / missingness addressed)
- [ ] Performance DV is justified; alternative operationalizations identified for robustness
- [ ] Strategic-choice measure is validated and sourced
- [ ] Controls are theory-driven; no post-treatment / "bad" controls
- [ ] The identifying threat is named and a design is chosen to address it
- [ ] For DID: pre-periods support a parallel-trends test; for IV: a candidate instrument with a relevance + exclusion story

## Anti-patterns

- Choosing OLS-with-controls and hoping reviewers ignore endogeneity (they will not)
- Unit-of-analysis mismatch between theory and data
- Undisclosed sample filters that could drive the result
- A performance measure chosen because it "works," not because it fits the theory
- Controlling for a variable that is itself an outcome of the treatment
- Picking the design before identifying the threat it is supposed to solve

## Output format

```
【Design family】panel FE | DID/natural experiment | IV | matching+DID | Heckman | qualitative | formal
【Sample】population / frame / window / unit
【Filters】[list + justification]
【DV (performance)】construct + measure + alternatives
【Focal X (strategic choice)】measure + source + validity note
【Identifying threat】selection | reverse causality | unobserved heterogeneity | omitted confound
【Chosen identification design】...
【Next step】smj-data-analysis
```

## Templates & resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — strategy data sources and Stata/R/Python packages for FE, IV, DiD, matching, RDD
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SMJ endogeneity policy and the Bettis et al. (2014) methods editorial

Attribution

brycewang-stanfordbrycewang-stanford
View sourceMore from brycewang-stanford →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Related Skills

Caveman

Ultra-compressed communication mode that cuts output tokens while keeping technical accuracy. Levels: lite, full, ultra and the wenyan variants. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief" or "less tokens".

1066601 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

686011 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3351 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

651 votes

math-skill

A comprehensive mathematical reasoning skill for AI assistants — handles arithmetic to research-level problems with rigorous step-by-step reasoning, systematic verification, and transparent uncertainty handling

381 votes
View all in ai-agents →