barrios88/barrios-skills/econ-writing-plus

Claude Code and agent skill by barrios88/barrios-skills

Trust tier 3
  • community
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Supplements economic-writing, econ-humanizer, academic-paper-writer, research-grants, and referee-report with advanced econ-specific guidance — (1) identification-strategy-specific writing conventions for 13 methods (RCT, DiD, IV, RDD, Synthetic Control, Synthetic DiD, Structural, Descriptive, Bunching, Shift-Share/Bartik, Event Studies, ML Causal), (2) modern DiD estimator guidance (Callaway-Sant'Anna, Sun-Abraham, de Chaisemartin-D'Haultfoeuille, Goodman-Bacon decomposition), (3) AEA replication-package standards, (4) AI-use disclosure policies (AEA, Econometric Society), (5) ERC grant structure, (6) field conventions for macro, trade, finance, (7) title evaluation framework, (8) economic-significance translation rules. USE when drafting/reviewing identification-strategy descriptions, AEA-journal submission prep, ERC proposals, or when the existing econ-writing skills don't cover method-specific narrative conventions. Synthesizes Cochrane, McCloskey, Head, Bellemare, Shapiro, plus modern DiD literature (Goodman-Bacon 2021, Callaway & Sant'Anna 2021, Sun & Abraham 2021, de Chaisemartin & D'Haultfoeuille 2020, Borusyak-Hull-Jaravel 2022, Goldsmith-Pinkham-Sorkin-Swift 2020, Arkhangelsky et al. synthetic DiD).

Install

npx vskill@latest install barrios88/barrios-skills/econ-writing-plus

SKILL.md

Barrios Skills — John Barrios's curated workflow for economists and accountants. Prioritize reproducible empirical work, clear identification language, and journal-ready output.

Econ Writing Plus

Advanced, method-specific additions to the existing economic-writing skill set. Use alongside economic-writing, econ-humanizer, research-grants, pre-submission-review, and referee-report — not instead of them.

When in doubt: default to the broader econ skills for general structure (abstract, intro, conclusion, review). Invoke this skill for:

  • Writing or reviewing an identification section — see identification-strategies.md
  • Preparing AEA / Econometrica / EJ submission compliance
  • ERC grant proposals (the existing research-grants skill only covers NSF/NIH/DOE/DARPA)
  • Field-specific conventions in macro, trade, or finance
  • Title evaluation
  • Translating statistical significance into economic magnitudes

1. IDENTIFICATION STRATEGIES (Primary Reference)

See identification-strategies.md for detailed writing conventions for each of the following:

  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) — ITT vs. LATE, attrition, spillovers, take-up
  • Difference-in-Differences (DiD) — parallel trends, event study, modern estimators
  • Instrumental Variables (IV) — instrument relevance, exclusion restriction, complier population, Anderson-Rubin CIs
  • Regression Discontinuity (RDD) — running variable, McCrary density test, bandwidth sensitivity, LOCAL interpretation
  • Synthetic Control — donor pool, pre-treatment fit, placebo inference
  • Synthetic DiD (Arkhangelsky et al.) — doubly robust, unit + time weights
  • Structural Estimation — identifying vs. functional-form assumptions, model fit, counterfactuals as payoff
  • Descriptive / Measurement — explicitly disclaim causality, data construction as contribution
  • Bunching Estimation (Saez, Kleven) — counterfactual distribution, optimization frictions
  • Shift-Share / Bartik — share vs. shift exogeneity (Goldsmith-Pinkham et al.; Borusyak-Hull-Jaravel), leave-one-out
  • Event Studies — pre-period coefficients, normalization, staggered-event estimators
  • ML for Causal Inference — Causal Forests, double/debiased ML, cross-fitting
  • Multi-strategy papers — name a primary, frame others as complementary
Modern DiD estimator guidance (critical for current submissions)

If a DiD paper uses staggered treatment adoption, do NOT present only two-way fixed effects. Use:

  • Goodman-Bacon (2021) decomposition to show which 2×2 comparisons drive the TWFE estimate (exposes negative-weight problem)
  • Callaway & Sant'Anna (2021) for heterogeneous treatment effects over time
  • Sun & Abraham (2021) for event-study specifications under staggered adoption
  • de Chaisemartin & D'Haultfoeuille (2020) for the no-sign-reversal assumption

Present results from BOTH traditional TWFE and a robust estimator. If they differ, explain why (negative weights, treatment effect heterogeneity). The event-study plot should come from the robust estimator, not the TWFE version.

Adapting the introduction by paper type
Paper TypeHook StrategyParagraphs 4-6Key Threat
RCTPolicy relevance of interventionITT and LATE estimatesAttrition, spillovers, external validity
DiDPolicy change / natural experimentMain DiD + event studyParallel trends, anticipation
IVThe instrument and why it's cleverOLS vs. IV comparisonExclusion restriction, weak instruments
RDDThe cutoff and its stakesRD estimate + bandwidth sensitivityManipulation, other discontinuities
Synthetic ControlTreated unit + eventSynthetic vs. actual trajectoryPre-treatment fit, donor pool
Synthetic DiDPolicy change + few treated unitsSynth-DiD vs. DiD vs. SCParallel trends, synth-control fit
StructuralQuestion requiring a modelCounterfactual resultsModel assumptions, external validity
TheoryPuzzle the model resolvesMain proposition + intuitionRobustness to assumptions
DescriptiveWhy the fact mattersKey patterns with magnitudesMeasurement validity, sample selection
BunchingPolicy kink/notch + affected groupElasticity + bunching plotOptimization frictions, manipulation
Shift-ShareShock + local exposureMain estimate + leave-one-outShare exogeneity, shock exogeneity
Event StudyEvent + stakesPlot + key coefficientsPre-trends, anticipation
ML/CausalPrediction or heterogeneity questionML vs. parametric comparisonOverfitting, interpretability

2. AEA REPLICATION PACKAGE STANDARDS

Every empirical paper submitted to AEA journals (and increasingly Econometrica, EJ, field journals) must include a replication package meeting the Data Editor standards.

README structure (Social Science Data Editors template):

  1. Data Availability & Provenance — who owns the data, how to access
  2. Dataset List — every file, source, description
  3. Computational Requirements — software, packages, runtime, hardware
  4. Programs Description — what each script does, execution order
  5. Replicator Instructions — step-by-step, reproducible without manual intervention

Directory structure:

data/raw/ <- original downloaded data, never modified
data/analysis/ <- cleaned analysis-ready datasets
code/ <- all scripts, numbered in execution order
results/ <- generated tables and figures

Rules:

  • Cite every dataset in the References section with standard in-text citations
  • Code must reproduce all results without manual intervention (one config file for paths is the only exception)
  • Map every table and figure to a specific program file
  • For restricted-access data: include a Data Availability Statement explaining the application procedure, wait times, and monetary costs
  • Include LICENSE.txt (default: CC-BY 4.0)

3. AI-USE DISCLOSURE

AEA policy: AI cannot be listed as an author. Disclose AI use during submission. Econometric Society: Co-authors must sign a responsibility statement accepting responsibility for all content.

What to disclose: drafting assistance, code generation, literature search, data analysis suggestions. Typically no disclosure needed: spell-check, grammar tools, LaTeX formatting.

Core rule: If AI drafted a paragraph, read it as if a careless RA wrote it — verify every fact, citation, and number. You are responsible for all AI-generated content.


4. ERC GRANT STRUCTURE

(Complements research-grants, which covers NSF/NIH/DOE/DARPA.)

ERC reviewer priorities differ from NSF:

  • PI track record is weighted heavily — foreground publication record, citation impact, career trajectory
  • "High-risk, high-gain" framing is mandatory — ERC explicitly funds frontier risk-taking, not incremental extensions
  • Societal relevance section should connect to real policy questions, not abstract "advancing knowledge"

Proposal structure:

  1. Extended synopsis (5 pages): question, approach, expected impact — written for a smart non-specialist
  2. Scientific proposal (14 pages for StG/CoG, 15 for AdG): detailed research plan, methodology, feasibility
  3. CV + track record (2 + 2 pages): highlight your contributions, not co-authors'
  4. Budget justification: link every cost to a specific research activity

Common mistake: writing like a finished paper. A proposal sells the plan, not findings. Emphasize what you WILL learn.


5. FIELD-SPECIFIC CONVENTIONS

Macroeconomics
  • Papers are longer (40–60 pages normal); the "under 40 pages" rule does not apply
  • Calibration tables are standard: parameter | value | source/target moment
  • Impulse response functions (IRFs) are the primary visualization, not regression tables
  • "Model Fit" section comparing model moments to data moments is expected
  • DSGE papers: describe steady state, log-linearization or solution method, shock specification
  • Phrase results as "the model generates X" rather than "I find X"
Trade
  • Gravity estimation: use PPML, multilateral resistance controls, explicit fixed-effects structure
  • General equilibrium counterfactuals are expected in structural trade papers
  • Use 3-year or 5-year panel intervals (not annual) with specific justification
Finance
  • Abstract limit is often 100 words (not 150) — check target journal
  • Fama-MacBeth regressions and portfolio-sort presentation are standard
  • Variable winsorization at 1%/99% is expected and must be reported
  • Chicago Manual of Style citation at some journals (differs from AEA)
Development / Applied Micro with RCTs
  • Pre-registration is nearly mandatory
  • Include a CONSORT-style flow diagram (enrollment → randomization → attrition → analysis)
  • Report cost-effectiveness alongside treatment effects
  • Balance tables belong prominently in the paper, not the appendix

6. TITLE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Score any candidate title 1–10 on each dimension:

  1. Clarity — Can a non-specialist understand the topic in one reading?
  2. Specificity — Are treatment/cause and outcome/effect both named?
  3. Length — Under 12 words is ideal; under 15 is acceptable
  4. Memorability — Would someone remember it at a conference?
  5. No methodology — Does it emphasize the finding, not the method? (Exception: you invented the method.)

Good:

  • "The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year"
  • "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition"
  • "Pollution and Mortality: Evidence from the 1952 London Fog"

Bad:

  • "A Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Education Policy" (methodology, not finding)
  • "On the Relationship Between Various Factors and Economic Outcomes" (says nothing)
  • "Essays on Labor Economics" (acceptable for dissertation, never for a paper)

Formulas that work:

  • "The Impact of [D] on [Y]: Evidence from [Context]"
  • "[D] and [Y]" (shorter, acceptable)
  • Theory: name the key mechanism, not the technique
  • Structural: "[Counterfactual Question]: Evidence from [Context]"

7. ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE (Not Just Statistical)

Never report a coefficient without translating it. Rules:

  • Translate to meaningful units: dollars, percentage points, standard deviations, policy benchmarks
  • Compare effect size to at least one of:
  • Mean of the dependent variable
  • A well-known intervention (e.g., "equivalent to 60% of the Moving to Opportunity effect")
  • A policy-relevant threshold (e.g., the poverty line)
  • For elasticities, state whether computed at the mean, median, or arc
  • Back-of-envelope calculations are encouraged — show the reader what the number means in aggregate
  • Null results: distinguish "precisely estimated zero" (report CI and rule out effects above X) from "imprecisely estimated" (wide CI). Discuss statistical power. If pre-registered, emphasize that.

8. MULTIPLE TESTING

When testing multiple outcomes or subgroups:

  • Acknowledge the problem explicitly
  • Report family-wise error rate (Bonferroni, Holm) or false discovery rate (Benjamini-Hochberg) corrections
  • At minimum, flag results surviving the correction
  • For heterogeneity: pre-specify subgroups based on theory, not data mining; report the number of subgroups tested

9. HOW TO USE THIS SKILL ALONGSIDE OTHERS

This is the start of the file. Read the full SKILL.md on GitHub.

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 90 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewPassed

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

Source

Popularity

Repository stars
53
Repository forks
27
7-day trend score
0

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/barrios88/barrios-skills/econ-writing-plus/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/barrios88/barrios-skills/econ-writing-plus)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.