Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Draft economics papers with proper structure and academic style
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 72% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 58% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 104% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 68% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 84% | 0% |
This skill helps economists draft, structure, and polish academic papers with proper conventions for economics journals. It provides templates for different paper types and guidance on academic writing style.
Ask the user:
For empirical papers, use:
latex\section{Introduction} % Hook - Why does this matter? [TOPIC] is a fundamental question in economics, with implications for [POLICY AREA] and [BROADER RELEVANCE]. Despite extensive research, we still lack clear evidence on [SPECIFIC GAP]. % Research question This paper asks: [RESEARCH QUESTION IN PLAIN LANGUAGE]? Specifically, we examine whether [PRECISE FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION]. % Preview of answer We find that [MAIN RESULT IN ONE SENTENCE]. This effect is [economically significant / modest / heterogeneous], with [QUANTITATIVE SUMMARY: e.g., "a one standard deviation increase in X associated with a Y percent increase in Z"]. % Methodology (brief) To identify this effect, we exploit [IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY: natural experiment / RCT / instrumental variable / RDD]. Our data come from [DATA SOURCE], covering [TIME PERIOD] and [SAMPLE SIZE] observations. % Contribution / Related literature Our paper contributes to several strands of literature. First, we extend the work of \citet{Author2020} by [EXTENSION]. Second, we provide new evidence on [MECHANISM/CHANNEL] that complements \citet{OtherAuthor2019}. Finally, our findings have implications for [POLICY/FUTURE RESEARCH]. % Roadmap The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:background} provides background and reviews related literature. Section~\ref{sec:data} describes our data and empirical strategy. Section~\ref{sec:results} presents our main findings. Section~\ref{sec:robustness} discusses robustness checks. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes.
latex\section{Results} \label{sec:results} % Lead with the main finding Table~\ref{tab:main} presents our main results. Column (1) shows the baseline OLS specification without controls. The coefficient on [TREATMENT VARIABLE] is [POINT ESTIMATE] (s.e. = [SE]), statistically significant at the [1/5/10] percent level. % Add controls incrementally In column (2), we add [CONTROL SET 1]. The point estimate [increases/decreases slightly/remains stable] to [ESTIMATE]. Column (3) includes [CONTROL SET 2] and adds [FIXED EFFECTS]. Our preferred specification in column (4) includes [FULL CONTROLS] and yields [FINAL ESTIMATE]. % Interpret magnitude To gauge economic significance, note that [INTERPRETATION]. A one standard deviation increase in [X] is associated with a [Y] percent [increase/decrease] in [OUTCOME], or roughly [COMPARISON TO MEAN/OTHER BENCHMARK]. % Brief mention of mechanisms/heterogeneity if relevant Table~\ref{tab:hetero} explores heterogeneity by [DIMENSION]. We find that the effect is [larger/concentrated among] [SUBGROUP], suggesting that [INTERPRETATION]. \begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{Main Results: Effect of X on Y} \label{tab:main} \begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline\hline & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) \\ & OLS & + Controls & + FE & Preferred \\ \hline Treatment & 0.052*** & 0.048*** & 0.041** & 0.039** \\ & (0.012) & (0.011) & (0.015) & (0.016) \\ \\ Controls & No & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ Fixed Effects & No & No & Yes & Yes \\ Cluster SE & No & No & No & Yes \\ \\ Observations & 10,000 & 9,850 & 9,850 & 9,850 \\ R-squared & 0.05 & 0.12 & 0.35 & 0.35 \\ \hline\hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize Notes: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.} \\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize Standard errors in parentheses.} \\ \end{tabular} \end{table}
latex\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion} % Restate question and answer This paper examined [RESEARCH QUESTION]. Using [METHOD/DATA], we found that [MAIN FINDING]. This result is robust to [ROBUSTNESS CHECKS]. % Implications Our findings have several implications. For policy, they suggest that [POLICY IMPLICATION]. For theory, they provide support for [THEORETICAL MECHANISM] and challenge [ALTERNATIVE VIEW]. % Limitations (brief, honest) Several limitations warrant mention. First, [LIMITATION 1: e.g., external validity]. Second, [LIMITATION 2: e.g., data constraints]. Future research could address these by [SUGGESTION]. % Future directions This paper opens several avenues for future work. [DIRECTION 1]. [DIRECTION 2]. We hope our findings stimulate further research on [BROADER TOPIC].
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.