Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/aeja-rebuttal
Use when an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (aeja-identification / aeja-robustness) or the submission preflight.
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
6 fixed13 passed either way1 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our labor economics manuscript just got a conditional acceptance from AEJ: Applied. The editor's letter asks us to address parallel trends sensitivity and add a scope statement, whereas Referee 3 wants us to collect new firm-level dataset variables that aren't feasibility-viable. Help me plan our response letter. I need an output structured with the decision status, the editor's priority demands, a comment triage breakdown marking what is done, partially done, or respectfully declined, the core empirical evidence including precise numbers and standard errors, check marks for tone and replication package updates, and the next submission step.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The output includes the tag 【Decision type】 conditional accept | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Editor priorities】 | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Triage】 | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Decisive evidence】 | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Tone check】 | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Package sync】 | Missed | Passed |
| The output includes the tag 【Next step】 | Missed | Passed |
| The triage explicitly declines collecting infeasible new firm-level dataset variables | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
The editor's letter is the priority signal: it tells you which referee concerns are binding and which are optional. At AEJ: Applied the binding asks are almost always about design credibility (the identification, robustness, inference) before exposition. Address the editor's stated priorities first and in full; treat the referee reports as the menu the editor has already filtered. A revision is judged on whether the identification concerns are genuinely resolved, not on volume of new tables.
| Referee ask | Default response |
|---|---|
| Core identification doubt (binding per editor) | do it in full; show the new estimate + SE; update the paper |
| Robustness/inference request | run it; report stability of the point estimate |
| External-validity / estimand | add a calibrated scope statement; do not overclaim |
| Additional outcome/subgroup | run with MHT adjustment; or argue why it is out of scope |
| Exposition / framing | revise; cheap to do, builds goodwill |
| Out-of-scope new paper | respectfully decline with a one-line reason |
aeja-replication-package)test cases passed, vs 15 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.