From ectj-skills
Sharpens a contribution for The Econometrics Journal into a compact leading-case claim with failure mode, advance, applied payoff, and scope guardrails.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ectj-skills:ectj-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Use this after the method and application are known but before final writing. EctJ seeks
Use this after the method and application are known but before final writing. EctJ seeks original contributions of direct or potential value in applications, and explicitly favors path-breaking, leading-case work over exhaustive treatment. Because the Editor-in-Chief screens conforming papers within about one week and desk-rejects with little comment, the contribution must be legible fast: the summary (no more than 150 words) and opening pages have to make the advance and its applied payoff obvious on a single read.
Write the contribution in four linked sentences:
If any sentence requires a page of qualification, the contribution is probably too broad for EctJ's
compact format. Route back to ectj-topic-selection and narrow the leading case.
A hypothetical EctJ submission proposes a restricted wild bootstrap for difference-in-differences with very few treated clusters (illustrative numbers throughout). The four-sentence pattern becomes:
Each sentence is auditable against a theorem, a simulation panel, or the application exhibit. That auditability, not rhetorical breadth, is what survives the one-week RES screen.
| Framing pattern | Why it fails at EctJ | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| "We provide a general framework for..." | Reads as exhaustive treatment, the opposite of the leading-case scope | Restate as the smallest sharp case plus an extensions remark |
| Method introduced before the applied failure | Editor cannot see direct or potential applied value quickly | Open with the empirical setting where incumbents break |
| Applied value asserted, never demonstrated | EctJ expects an empirical application even for theory papers | Point the claim at a specific application exhibit |
| Novelty defined only against statistics or ML | The econometric setting must add something | Name the econometric object and assumption the paper changes |
Calibrate against recent EctJ issues: accepted papers typically spend their first page on the failure mode and the leading-case result, deferring everything else. If the draft's first page could open a survey at a longer-format journal instead, the framing has not yet earned this venue.
[Contribution sentence] <one EctJ-ready sentence>
[Applied-value sentence] <who benefits and how>
[Existing-method gap] <what breaks before this paper>
[Scope guardrail] <what the paper does not claim>
[Intro edit] <paragraph-level fix>
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ectj-skillsFrames Journal of Econometrics manuscripts as general methodological advances rather than narrow technical fixes. Use when a correct result lacks an articulated contribution to econometrics.
Frames econometric theory contributions for Econometric Theory (ET) journal submission, stating the main theorem and scope up front, choosing Article vs Miscellanea framing, and aligning with themed editorial directions.
Evaluates whether a research paper meets Econometrica's standards of generality and methodological contribution. Useful for assessing fit and sharpening the contribution statement.