Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when targeting 《中国经济问题》(China Economic Studies — 厦门大学主办的经济学双月刊, 不收版面费) or deciding whether a Chinese econ manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, abstract/keyword house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-china-economic-studies/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -5% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 15% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 11% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 72% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 5% | 0% |
《中国经济问题》由厦门大学主办，是经济学双月刊，CSSCI 来源期刊。延续厦大经济学传统，适合中国经济增长、改革与发展、财政金融、产业组织、区域经济、开放经济与两岸经济研究。强调研究论文须有创新性、内容充实完整。
这个 skill 是定位 / 选刊 / 改写框架工具，不替代该刊最新官方投稿须知。正式投稿前必须重新核对官网、采编系统或编辑部发布的最新模板。
china-accounting-review（《会计评论》） / china-economic-quarterly（《经济学（季刊）》） / china-industrial-economics（《中国工业经济》） / china-public-administration-review（《公共管理评论》）。若这些刊物的读者对象更贴近，不要因为名称、地区或变量相似而强行投本刊。../../resources/source-basis.md 和 ../../resources/official-source-map.md，从其中的官方来源锚点或同一主办/出版体系入口开始核验，并在回答中说明核验日期。国际经济更强转 world-economic-papers；区域学报风格转 journal-of-shanghai-university-of-finance-and-economics。
text【匹配度】高 / 中 / 低（一句话理由） 【目标期刊】《中国经济问题》 【选题标签】<最贴近的 2-3 个主题> 【方法证据】<当前方法是否够本刊标准> 【最大风险】<最可能导致退稿的一点> 【需核验官方要求】<投稿系统/匿名/摘要/图表/数据等> 【改投建议】<若不匹配，给出更合适期刊>
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 30,848 | 21,407 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,622 | 3,459 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 31,911 | 19,014 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,377 | 3,157 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 27,811 | 20,066 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,099 | 3,381 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 27,071 | 21,389 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,087 | 3,550 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 32,468 | 27,267 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,314 | 4,491 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 29,975 | 20,794 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,358 | 3,735 | +11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 27,665 | 30,404 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,832 | 4,882 | +72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 27,678 | 15,714 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,661 | 2,799 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 28,969 | 16,572 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,944 | 3,654 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 25,764 | 34,317 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,449 | 5,046 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 25,898 | 25,834 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,931 | 3,972 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 44,017 | 34,412 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,004 | 4,459 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 19,948 | 115,559 | +479% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,967 | 3,252 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 17,456 | 18,564 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,436 | 4,353 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 31,720 | 22,122 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,253 | 3,663 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 29,975 | 29,246 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,164 | 4,758 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 24,559 | 26,173 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,598 | 4,176 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 26,912 | 24,845 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,071 | 3,832 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 31,175 | 24,837 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,260 | 4,125 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 24,652 | 24,472 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,020 | 3,768 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 27,849 | 20,572 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,811 | 3,647 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 26,265 | 22,035 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,629 | 3,586 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.