From ectj-skills
Drafts a structured response letter and revision plan for The Econometrics Journal using referee triage, evidence rules, and venue-specific pushback patterns.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ectj-skills:ectj-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page,
Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page, and current author instructions before setting deadlines.
Classify each requested change before writing:
The response letter should show that the leading case is now stronger, not just longer.
For every major comment, attach exactly one evidence object: theorem change, proof fix, simulation result, application table, compression decision, or replication-file update. If a response has no evidence object, it is probably only reassurance and should be strengthened before resubmission.
| Referee pushback | What it signals at EctJ | Fix that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| "Asymptotic results carry no finite-sample evidence" | Theory-simulation contract broken | Add the one coverage or size panel that pairs with the contested theorem, summarized within the main-text page norm |
| "Simulation DGPs are detached from the empirical illustration" | Applied-value claim looks decorative | Re-anchor one DGP to parameters estimated from the application data and say so in the design preamble |
| "The leading case is too special to matter" | Scope guardrail read as a defect | Show the leading case covers the application class; add a remark stating what an extension would require |
| "Why is this proof only in the online appendix?" | Proof-placement conformance risk | Move the derivation into the printed appendix and re-verify the 20-page budget |
| "Code did not reproduce Table 3" | Replication credibility, decisive after conditional acceptance | Rerun the package, fix seeds or versions, cite the exact script in the response |
Illustrative numbers: a referee writes that the proposed test's size is untrustworthy with few clusters. A strong EctJ response does four things in four sentences: concede the gap ("the original design only simulated 30 or more clusters"), report new evidence ("at 8 clusters the test rejects 5.6% at nominal 5%, versus 12.9% for the incumbent; new Table 2, rows 1-2"), tie it to the theorem ("consistent with Proposition 2's symmetric leading case"), and protect the page budget ("the full grid moved to Supplement S3"). Evidence, theorem, location — nothing else.
[Decision] R&R / conditional acceptance / reject-resubmit / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Major issues] <assumptions/proofs/simulations/application/replication>
[Response draft] <point-by-point structure>
[Compression guardrail] <what must not grow>
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ectj-skillsStructures point-by-point rebuttal letters and revision plans for Econometrica manuscripts after receiving referee reports. Helps sort referee comments and organize proof fixes, generality additions, or simulation evidence.
Guides revision strategy for Econometric Theory decision letters: triages referee comments, prioritizes proof fixes, structures the point-by-point response letter.
Plans response letters and revised manuscripts for Journal of Econometrics revision requests, handling technical referee objections on assumptions, asymptotics, and Monte Carlo simulations.