Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a World Politics manuscript so it survives expert triple-blind review and the Dataverse replication requirement — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to comparative cross-national, qualitative, or formal-empirical work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wp-data-analysis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Wp Data Analysis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-wp-data-analysis)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: wp-data-analysis
description: Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a World Politics manuscript so it survives expert triple-blind review and the Dataverse replication requirement — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to comparative cross-national, qualitative, or formal-empirical work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
---
# Data Analysis (wp-data-analysis)
World Politics reviewers are methodologically demanding, and authors who **rely on quantitative data
must deposit replication materials in the World Politics Dataverse** that let others reproduce the
**exact numerical results** (see `wp-transparency-and-data-policy`). Analyze as if both are true —
because they are. This skill covers execution and reporting norms; design decisions live in
`wp-research-design`.
## When to trigger
- Running main and supporting analyses; building the results/findings section
- A reviewer asked for robustness, heterogeneity, or alternative specifications
- Reconciling the cross-case pattern with within-case evidence (mixed methods)
- Making the analysis reproducible before deposit
## Analysis norms World Politics expects
1. **Report uncertainty honestly.** Confidence/credible intervals, not just stars; the magnitude and
substantive meaning of the estimate across cases, not just its significance.
2. **Robustness that probes, not decorates.** Show specifications that could *break* the result
(alternative measures of regime/institution/conflict, alternative samples of cases, estimators,
fixed effects), and say what you learn.
3. **Cross-national inference.** Cluster at the appropriate level (often country); address serial
correlation and cross-sectional dependence in TSCS; small-N panels need honest few-cluster
corrections (e.g., wild-cluster bootstrap).
4. **Measurement that travels.** Validate constructs across cases; report reliability; show results are
not an artifact of one coding/scaling choice or one source (V-Dem vs. Polity, COW vs. UCDP).
5. **Heterogeneity with discipline.** Pre-specify subgroups/regions where possible; correct for
multiple comparisons; do not mine for a significant interaction and theorize it post hoc.
6. **Triangulation.** Where the design is mixed-method, show the within-case process evidence and the
cross-case statistics point the same way, and reconcile where they don't.
## Qualitative / comparative-historical specifics
- Make the **evidentiary basis explicit** — which sources support which inferential step; link claims
to documents/interviews via evidence tables (see `wp-tables-figures`).
- For process tracing, report the tests passed/failed and what would have disconfirmed the argument.
## Reproducibility while you work (not at the end)
- One **master script** regenerates every table and figure from the (raw or constructed) data.
- **Set and report seeds** for bootstrap, randomization, and any stochastic step.
- Pin software/package versions (`renv.lock`, `requirements.txt`, recorded `ssc`/`net` installs).
- Keep table/figure numbers matched to script outputs — the Dataverse package must reproduce them.
## Anti-patterns
- Stars-only tables with no effect sizes or intervals
- "Robustness" that only reruns near-identical specs to manufacture stability
- Results that hinge on one data source or one coding choice without showing alternatives
- Clustering at the wrong level; ignoring TSCS serial correlation / cross-sectional dependence
- A findings section whose numbers the deposited code cannot reproduce
## Output format
```
【Main estimate】magnitude + interval + substantive meaning across cases
【Identification check】(per research-design) result
【Robustness】specs / alternative sources that could break it → what held
【Measurement】construct validated across cases? source sensitivity shown?
【Triangulation】within-case + cross-case agree? reconciled?
【Reproducible】master script + seeds + pinned versions? [Y/N]
【Next】wp-tables-figures
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — estimation, TSCS/panel, survival, and text-as-data packages
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Dataverse replication requirement
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!