Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/arecon-revision
Use when responding to Editorial Committee and referee feedback on an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — coverage gaps, balance/accuracy complaints, framework/structure asks, and accessibility. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (arecon-organizing-framework).
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 16 of 22 without it.
3 fixed16 passed either way3 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Referee 1 comments that the theoretical foundations of our survey on banking crises feel fragmented across sections. According to standard review revision protocols, what specific addition should be placed in the opening framework of the manuscript to address this?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommends adding a canonical model summary or comparative-static logic table to the opening framework. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
ARE revision asks cluster differently from primary-research asks. Triage every point into one bucket:
| Feedback type | Typical phrasing | Response move |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage gap | "you omit the X literature / author Y" | almost always concede and integrate — place the missing work in the right framework cell; re-run saturation (arecon-literature-synthesis) |
| Balance / fairness | "this slights school Z / over-cites the author" | steelman the slighted side; re-audit self-citation (arecon-evidence-standards) |
| Appraisal accuracy | "you mischaracterize study W" | correct precisely; reviewed authors often referee — fix exactly |
| Framework / structure | "this is an annotated bibliography" | strengthen or make explicit the spine (arecon-organizing-framework); do not just reorder paragraphs |
| Accessibility | "a non-specialist can't follow Section 4" | add intuition, define jargon (arecon-writing-style) |
| Scope | "too broad / too narrow / overruns length" | negotiate with the editor (arecon-editor-strategy); rescope deliberately, within the page envelope |
Annual Review of Economics revisions should leave a clear economics review contract, not just a longer bibliography. Maintain a ledger that tells the editor how each change sharpens what an economist can learn from the review.
| Revision pressure | Evidence to add or rebalance | Where it should show up |
|---|---|---|
| Theory/model spine is unclear | canonical model, mechanism, or comparative-static logic | opening framework figure/table, section road map |
| Empirical frontier is uneven | design map: data, identification, estimand, limitation | evidence table and "what we know" summary |
| Magnitudes are under-interpreted | elasticities, welfare-relevant units, or scale benchmarks | synthesis paragraphs, not just citations |
| Field boundary is disputed | adjacent JEL literatures and handbook/JEP-style anchors | boundary note explaining inclusion/exclusion |
| Policy or welfare stakes are vague | clarified mechanism-to-policy channel and uncertainty | conclusion/agenda, with caveats preserved |
| Adjacent economists cannot follow | intuition before notation, plain-language result labels | section openings and table captions |
Use the ledger to prevent a common AREcon failure mode: adding every requested citation while the review's economic proposition becomes less visible.
test cases passed, vs 16 / 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.